Wikipedia talk:Oversight/Archive 6

Problems with the oversight tool
This has been bothering me for a while, and I don't know if it's a bug, a feature, or just something that's not been given much thought, but I'd like to hear the oversight team's thoughts on this. On a busy page (like AN/I) if there is a long gap between the posting of oversightable material and its removal, the page history is essentially made useless for a large stretch of time and diffs from unrelated discussions are made inaccessible.

For example, if someone posts oversightable content to Thread A, then 100 people comment on unrelated Threads B and C, then when the Thread A material is oversighted, every diff of comments made to Threads B and C in the interim are inaccessible. This is not ideal. There should be a way for oversighters to mark certain diffs as "safe" (but showing the diff only, not the whole page) since they do not reveal the oversighted content. Obviously the permanent link to the interim edits would not be viewable since the oversighted material is still on the page at that point.

Allowing oversighters to make such diffs viewable while leaving the diffs that reveal oversighted material nonviewable would be a huge improvement in transparency and usability. Has such a thing been discussed? Is there any reason why we wouldn't want to update the software to allow oversighters to do this? 28bytes (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This would be something to file a phabricator ticket for; I think everyone would agree that it's a great point, but there is nothing that the OS team can actually do about it. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, definitely agreed that the OS team can't implement the suggestion; I wanted to get y'all's thoughts on whether that's either been previously discussed or if there are problems with this suggestion that, not being on the OS team, I hadn't considered. 28bytes (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be good. Like Primefac, I'd say it needs a phab ticket. The complicating factor would be that is affects other WMF projects, who may for some reason oppose it (I can't think of a reason why, but the things that people get worked up about on other projects never stops surprising me.) There's also the practical issue of "Do you really want an oversighter manually clicking 99 revisions to allow diff view?" Not something that would kill the idea in my book, but worth mentioning. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony. If, after a few days, it seems like there are no objections to the idea I'll file a phab ticket. I agree it would be a pain if oversighters had to vet every diff, but it would be nice for them to have the ability to do so when the need arises. 28bytes (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think suggested something like this once?  I'm fairly certain there's a related phabricator ticket about redoing the way diffs are handled, which is what this essentially boils down to and is probably a complicated, long-term kind of thing.  Can't comment on the feasibility for revision delete, though. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 17:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My idea, and I haven't the foggiest how easy or difficult it would be to implement, was that we would have the opportunity to oversight certain text rather than just certain edits, and that exact string would be suppressed in all revisions in which it appears (probably we'd need to set certain bounding revisions). I don't imagine this working on anything less than a line of text (i.e. a string of text bordered by newlines, so a paragraph of prose). My thinking was that intermediate revisions would be available but with the offending text replaced with something like , but as was rightly pointed out this would be a big red flag for what to look for in mirrors. If you do raise a phab ticket for this, please ping me with a link. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thryduulf. Will do. 28bytes (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Diffing systems are very complicated. Adding partial redaction systems will add a lot of edge cases, and with edge cases come potential vulnerabilities. For example, I don't believe that git has partial redaction features like this, which says something about the difficulty and complexity. This request is doable in principle of course, but would likely be quite complicated due to the edge cases. The real biggest obstacle is that the Wikimedia Foundation does not have a team focused on advanced tooling like oversight, and instead relies on pushing people towards the Community Wishlist to get things like this worked on, so anything that's not a serious security vulnerability or trivial fix will likely go into a backlog and languish there. --Deskana (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus against move. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Oversight → Suppression – This page describes the process as "suppression" and notes that "oversight" is a historical name. "Suppression" is a more accurate name to describe the process than "oversight" (omission/supervision) anyway. feminist (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there are some verb-noun issues. The log is indeed called suppression, as are the individual rights, but the relevant user group is still , so the current title is technically correct as a noun but not as a verb.  A comparison to WP:Administrators is a little inaccurate, but the current title is clearly the more common usage, for noun and verb (and policy) cases.  At any rate, renaming the page to the less common parlance and to a different title than the global policy probably won't help clear things up. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 11:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Amory, there is little to be gained by moving this page away from the common name and the redirect exists to help people find the right page. Thryduulf (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my colleagues above. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Procedural Oppose - I think the Arbitration Committee would have to action this rename; so long as they grant Oversight privileges the page should stay here. Also a regular oppose; we don't use other words (like "Arbitration" or "Notability") the way the dictionary defines them, I see no need to fix this one. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't. While it's possible the name of the user-right might possibly have been better chosen way back in 2006, the ship has long since sailed, and it is now baked in to so many things that it would not be possible to extricate it. Suppression appropriately redirects to this page.  Risker (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The verbs Oversight and Suppress are used interchangeably on English Wikipedia, and the usergroup is known as Oversight only, never Suppressors. The "common name", if project pages followed our common name guidelines, would correctly be Oversight, regardless of what the technical tool function is called. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 18 December 2018
Wikipedia:Oversight → Suppression – It is known as oversight for historical reasons; the name should be supression  IWI  ( chat ) 13:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't we just go through this two weeks ago? (hint: look up) There's some pretty good arguments to keep it unchanged. Someone might want to speedy close this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is done, shouldn't the user right and logo etc be changed to match this.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 13:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

email functionality
For your information, I made a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Emailing users regarding a feature which I think which might be useful in this context. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

List of oversighters
Why are the people that were appointed oversighters (or checkusers) prior to serving on arbcom not returned to the "Appointed community oversighters" category after they finish serving on arbcom? They were appointed by the community to begin with (as much as any functionary is).Natureium (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there are two options - return the "appointed" OSers back to that list, and add a ref that they were once on ArbCom, or put them in a list of former arbs and add a ref that they held the spot before being an arb. It's six or two threes, and personally I'd rather see the former just because it's easier to parse out in my head. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify - no oversighters have ever been "appointed by the community". There are oversighters who were not arbitrators who were appointed by Arbcom, and the community was invited to express opinions on the proposed candidates prior to their appointment. Many years ago, Arbcom started setting up a process where the community would take over that responsibility and the community turned out to not be all that interested. Speaking as someone who was on Arbcom at the time we were trying to devolve those responsibilities, the community's response was really frustrating. I don't know whether it would be worth trying again - but the last few rounds where the community has been asked to comment on candidates, very few people have participated, so I wouldn't blame today's Arbcom for declining to try it again.  Risker (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I emailed request for Oversight, nobody replied to me, what does this mean?
I emailed request for Oversight, nobody replied to me, what does this mean? If the request is declined, is there any form of notification?

Thanks Wraper11 (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , your request has a lot to unpack and dig into, and (as volunteers) its likely that no one has had the time to dive in to the issue. If and when the issue is dealt with, you will get a notification. Thank you for your patience. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably I have too many pages to delete... I'll list them one after another, sorry for the trouble Wraper11 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know you probably already know, but don't post them here! It would help if a specific list could be sent to OTRS, but if not we'll still look through and see what needs doing. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, what is OTRS? I normally just click the link above to email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraper11 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The email link sends the information to OTRS, which is our secure system for allowing the OS team to respond to requests. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for creation
The reason for deletion appears to be incorrect as of today: This is a user group, and members of the group are being incorrectly displayed as "oversight" instead of "oversighter" in lists such as Special:ListUsers/suppress.

The source of the text "oversight" can be verified at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/suppress?uselang=qqx

The usage of the word "oversighter(s)" to refer to members of this group is an established part of the WP:OVERSIGHT policy.

Please create MediaWiki:Group-oversight-member with the following content, without quotation marks: "oversighter"

Alternatively, although in English this happens to be meaningless and unnecessary, the following code can be used:

Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As the issue may affect other MediaWiki installations too, I have now also created T223043. Theoretically, if T223043 is accepted and fixed, we may be able to delete the requested page again. As I believe that creating the page is completely uncontroversial and backed by policy, and as valid phabricator tickets are sometimes open for years, the above request may be useful anyway. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , please explain why you believe this to be a problem. The current usage has been in place since creation of the user right about 14 years ago (including the period of transition from the Oversight extension to the current extension in 2009), and has caused no controversy as far as I can tell. To my knowledge, there has not been a single oversighter or member of the community who has found the current usage to be problematic or confusing. Risker (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , it surprised me as an obviously incorrect word when I had a look at the list. Please explain why you disagree. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your response. In the case of all group rights lists (such as those seen on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/suppress?uselang=qqx ), as best I can tell the group "name" is the same as the permission name.  Thus, "filemover" matches the "filemover" permission, "bureaucrat" matches the "bureaucrat" permission, and "oversight" matches the "oversight" permission.  There is a logical pattern in the existing process.  I was surprised at the suggestion because it seemed to go against the existing logical pattern. Ironically, if you go directly to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers you will find the option to list oversighters, which I believe satisfies your concern.  Risker (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , oh, I see. Thank you for the explanation; I agree with you that the group name itself should ideally match the group-member name. For example, the page I'm proposing to create should ideally be located at "MediaWiki:Group-oversighter-member" instead of "MediaWiki:Group-oversight-member". However, renaming groups internally is likely problematic. A notable exception to your list above is the "sysop" group. As can be seen at MediaWiki:Group-sysop-member, the current default name for a member of this group is "administrator". The page does not exist locally, this is the global default for all wikis that use MediaWiki, not limited to Wikimedia. So if I understand correctly, for backwards compatibility, the MediaWiki developers prefer to implement solutions such as T223043 instead of renaming the group itself.
 * Regarding the "Ironically" note, I concur that this is interesting. The list uses MediaWiki:Group-oversight instead of MediaWiki:Group-oversight-member, as does Special:ListGroupRights. Only the resulting list uses the text that I'm proposing to change. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "not been a single oversighter" concern, I may have found contrary evidence at User:Amorymeltzer/userinfo.js, which overrides the default group name as "friendlyGroupNames". Face-smile.svg Pinging for input. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll reply here, since you pinged me, but this is a reply to the whole thing. That script turns all the user groups into subject(ish) forms, so that it can display "An autopatrolled user, extended confirmed user, page mover..."  The reason "oversight" is made "oversighter" is to fit that subject-like form, for grammatical sense, as are many others; that is, oversight isn't treated special or "fixed" any more than, say, new page patrollers.


 * At any rate, while many of these user groups are named like that, OS is far from the only exception, and I wouldn't even say there's a consensus. Confirmed, autoconfirmed, and extendedconfirmed are similarly structured, import is as well, and that's not even mentioning the bastardization of abusefilter, patroller, and sysop.  The real problem is that things have been named haphazardly — compare sysop and interface-admin or checkuser and oversight — as might be expected for a project that has evolved over nearly two decades, but unless there's confusion, I'm not even really clear on what the issue is here. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 21:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see this done via T223043 (or not done at all if that is rejected). — xaosflux  Talk 19:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm marking the request as "answered" for now. I'm a bit negatively surprised that correcting an incorrect word on Wikipedia is met with bureaucratic reservation. If it had been any other language wiki, I could simply have fixed the issue on translatewiki.net. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that the change is being objected on phabricator because of an alleged lack of consensus: Really? We need an RFC to fix a typo? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a typo, and it logically isn't. I do get the desire for consistency, but since you're only targeting this particular perceived inconsistency instead of much more significant ones (i.e., the sysop/administrator dichotomy), I think perhaps you're barking up the wrong tree here.  Risker (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To add to my vote below: the only people who who could possibly care about this know enough about Wikipedia to not be confused one bit by it. The normal perenial proposal re: +oversight is whether or not we should change the group title to suppressors. That at least is technically correct. This is just changing something for the sake of changing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment
Which text should be used at Special:ListUsers to refer to a member of the "oversight" group? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Option A: "oversighter"
 * Option B: "oversight"

Survey

 * Umm. Click your link. It already says "Oversighters" in Special:ListUsers. You're looking at something other than what you're proposing in this RFC. Risker (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Complete waste of time and non-issue. Speedy close RfC please. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding to this as it was blunt: I know this was made in good faith, but the discussion and the implementation are more time than it is worth. This would only be noticed by an exceptionally small group of editors, and I don't think it is a particularly useful change or discussion to have, even if had in good faith. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "oversight" is used in the group membership message for all Wikimedia wikis, so changing it here would not be a total fix anyway. It really doesn't matter what it is. This isn't a discussion that we need to have, and if I can offer some unsolicited advice, this isn't a hill you should want to die on. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Worth thinking about if you are first implementing the functionality (and in general, developers should spend more time thinking about what to name things), but not worth changing once the decision is made. Other things that are sub-optimal but not worth changing:
 * The fact that a surplus of electrons is called negative.
 * The layout of the QWERTY keyboard.
 * The ABC... order of the English alphabet.
 * The fact that our word for the tenth month of the year is Latin for "eighth month".
 * The fact that most computers have icons showing a rotary phone and a floppy disk when the user owns neither of those devices and unless they are old enough don't know what they look like.
 * The La Brea Tar Pits. Translate the Spanish and you get The The Tar Pits Tar Pits.
 * Serifs. Don't get me started on serifs...
 * Any of the above are a better target than oversight/oversighters if you want to fix mistakes in what things are called. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've read all of this section twice. I still don't understand why the current situation is a problem, or why the proposed change will stop it being one, especially in the light of the sysop/admin dichotomy and all the other issues raised. I don't care enough to actually oppose the change, but I don't actively support it either. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * yes, the group is called oversighters, but the individual members are tagged as "oversight" - look at the entries in Special:ListUsers/suppress, not the heading. For example:  --DannyS712 (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you please reconsider your inappropriate statement? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, I know that and it doesn't affect my view that this is not a useful discussion. Considering that Risker has been around since the original oversight tool was being used and before suppression existed, I also suspect she knows this. The point that is being made is that this really isn't a conversation that impacts anyone, and that the effort to implement any close here would be more work than it is worth, even if it is a relatively trivial change. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll stand corrected that my comment above was incomplete, but I don't believe it was inappropriate. Again...when clicking the links that are present in the tagline that outlines the permissions held by the individuals, "checkuser" links to Checkuser, which is the policy for using the Checkuser permission; the permission is called "checkuser" and the "user" part refers to the person being checked, not the user holding the permission. The term "oversight" links to Oversight, which is the policy for using the oversight permission. The term "administrator" links to Administrators, which is the policy governing those using the administrator permission. I think perhaps the issue here is semantic rather than real; as mentioned above, there are similar pages that use the term "sysop" to mean "administrator", and nobody's all that worried about them either. Nothing in the current circumstance prevents any user from finding the list of people with oversight permission, regardless of what the global MediaWiki interface says.  Risker (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, some of us only refer to "administrators" as "sysops!" Those are actually three good examples by Risker, because they're all even more different than even said:
 * A Checkuser (with ) uses CheckUser under the auspicies of the CheckUser policy (policy page is a singular noun and named for the tool (which is camelcase))
 * An administrator (with ) uses sysop tools under the auspices of the Administrators policy (policy page is a plural noun and named for the common/unofficial noun)
 * An oversighter (with ) uses suppression tools under the auspices of the Oversight policy (policy page is a verb matching the group, which itself is a legacy holdover)
 * Anyway, WP:BIKE ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 09:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

New warning template
I went ahead and tweaked Template:uw-pinfo to deal with leaking private info of BLPs, since I couldn't seem to find a template for that. See: User:TonyBallioni/BLP private info. Not sure if others will find it useful, but in case they do, anyone should feel free to use it (and/or copy it and personalize it, and/or just tweak it in my userspace because I don't care.) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

can't find template
What in the holy hell is the name of the template we use when a minor reveals too much information? I've made a number of guesses, all wrong. And should we maybe have a "toolbox" at the bottom of this page of all OS-related templates? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Fluffernutter/c. I think there’s one from Alison too, but I use Fluff’s because it’s the first one I found. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Or Template:Uw-selfinfo --DannyS712 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of us use Fluff’s or Alison’s, I think. Easier to remember than template code. And bigger. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! tag deployed. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find {{subst:uw-selfinfo}} easier to remember, but to each their own. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've tried twice to add it to my custom warnings in Twinkle but for some reason it doesn't seem to be working. I suppose I can always just ever back to this thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a default version of this for adults who add personal info? I just used this one and then removed the line about younger editors, but there's got to be another version, and I can't bloody find it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you set no in uw-selfinfo to remove the "young" text. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. Okay. I guess I should read the documentation. Thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 August 2019
The current notice is same as User:Arbitration Committee/Emailnotice which is highly irrelevant and thus, misleading. Replace with. &#x222F; WBG converse 11:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ (not yet) I agree it can be improved, but I don't think your replacement is sufficient - can you expand on it and then reactivate this?  Warning the sender about what is disclosed and where it may be distributed is still important. —  xaosflux  Talk 12:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not in a mood to think about relevant additions. Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear: The Arbitration Committee "owns" User:Oversight and would be responsible for making any changes to the email interface. They're a little busy now, so this would be a pretty low priority. I do agree the current interface is too big, too long, and implies that emails are going to Arbcom instead of the OTRS oversight list, however, it still gets the job done since at least a third of our requests come from that email address.  Risker (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 September 2019
Change "You may have to type the @ sign into your e-mail client after you copy and paste our email address; pasting that address may render as  as  " to "You may have to type the   sign into your e-mail client after you copy and paste our email address; pasting that address may render   as  " to delete the "as" before " " as it seems to be a grammatical error. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 07:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Leftover in this 2013 rewrite. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 09:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2019
The Arbitration Committee is accepting applications for appointments as CheckUser and Oversight team members. and are the arbitrators overseeing this process. The names of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, who will be asked for assistance with vetting candidates.


 * Applications: 23 September to 29 September
 * Review period: 30 September to 2 October – the committee will review applications and ask the functionary team for their feedback
 * Notification of candidates: 2 October to 3 October – notification of candidates
 * Community consultation: 4 October to 23:59 UTC, 10 October – candidates' statements published, community is invited to comment
 * Appointments: by 14 October

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 17:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Untitled
How can I tell if my oversight request was accepted? Do you get an email or a thank-you? Kalimi (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * well for one you can just go look at the revision - is it gone? If so it was granted. You normally will get a return email. I can let you know your request was received, it is 2019122510005211. —  xaosflux  Talk 01:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just received an email 8 minutes ago. I was wondering what response I would get. Kalimi (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is wondering: Most oversighters receive an emailed notice when a new message is sent via OTRS, and often the email itself will contain enough information for an action to be taken even without logging in to OTRS.  Therefore, a request could be actioned some time before an oversighter gets to OTRS to directly answer the email.  I'll note in passing that for many of us, this is a holiday/family day, so there aren't as many of us answering emails as there might be on a typical Wednesday evening; that doesn't mean that suppressions aren't being made, though.  Risker (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Kalimi (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Appropriateness of using Oversighter's time in this situation:
Say a brand new user comes along and creates their userpage, and it looks like this:

Is requesting suppression a valuable use of oversighter time, or should I just CSD? --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Both. Delete to remove the record, contact us so it can be suppressed. Primefac (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, (I'm not a CU) but anyrhing posted like your example should be Revdel'd or OS'D -  FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 17:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to expand on my earlier comment, the page should be deleted with a generic rationale such as WP:G6 or WP:U5 (depending on what information there is and where). Using a generic delete with "private info, delete right away!" actually brings more light to the situation. Primefac (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * sigh.
 * I really should've found out about this a bit earlier.
 * I'll have to try and review my CSD log, as i imagine there's OS requiring content in a good few of the things I deleted.
 * Any way for me to gain temporary permission to view deleted articles? I do not wish to waste anyone else's time on reviewing my CSD log. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably should've pinged you. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, if it's deleted, then that's 90% of the battle. Most admins won't be looking through deleted pages for suppressible content, and they're the only ones who at that point would be able to see it. I wouldn't worry too much. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless you are making tons of OS requests - don't worry about wasting our time if you think something should be referred - that is what the OS team is here for! A lot of times these are obvious resume copy-pastes, often off of a copy that is all over the internet - in which case rushing to suppression isn't usually that important if it is somewhat clear that it is a self-disclosure by an adult in my opinion. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a general consensus about when to leave contact info alone vs when to oversight it? I get that underage editors posting personal information pretty much always need to be suppressed out of an abundance of caution, but in cases where it's a probably-adult editor posting semi-personal things about themselves (e.g. an email address), is that seen as something worth oversighting? creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There may be more, but at the least if some experienced editor does it, it is usually safe to leave be or discuss in the normal manner. — xaosflux  Talk 19:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's almost always context-dependent, but we traditionally view it as being safe rather than sorry. A lot of people don't know the impact posting their personal email on one of the largest websites in the world, so we'll suppress first and restore it only if they request and acknowledge that they know what they're doing (especially if it's a new editor). Primefac (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry. - FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 19:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * We have more than enough oversighters (and in my view, too many, but that’s a discussion for September 2020 when they do the next appointment round), and the only reason a ticket goes unanswered for more than a few hours is if it doesn’t meet the suppression criteria and no one wants to decline it and deal with arguing over the follow-up emails. If you think it might need suppression, send it in. Worrying about wasting time is really not a concern at all here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Impossible to action advice (for most)
When you email the OS email, it suggests that you can use the template, and offers a hyperlink to where you could use it to notify Oversight more generally (vs a single oversighter) of it. However, two issues: one is whether this remains at all necessary (we have quite a few oversighters, and I imagine the email is checked pretty regularly), but more of an issue - the page it links to is fully protected (giving the email info, which obviously has already been done). I could edit it, but non-admins couldn't, so it seems the post-email statement should be struck. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s the standard email sent page. Don’t really think there’s anything you can do to fix it unless you get rid of it for every email sent. Also don’t think it’s that big a deal since we haven’t had anyone complain about it or raise the issue until now. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, if it would require a general adaptation then it would definitely be too major a shift for the benefit Nosebagbear (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You could always switch to using Special:Contact/oversight (see m:Special:Contact/stewards) and customize the message at the top. Might be useful to have some directions/FAQs when emailing oversighters anyway. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sure about the difference between Special:Contact and Special:EmailUser. I think what's being talked about by is MediaWiki:Emailsenttext, which from my understanding is the same for all users. This is more a  question. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mm good point, I don't know what message is sent after an email via Special:Contact. IIRC it is more customizable (or at least separately so) than EmailUser, and is intended for contacting groups rather than individuals. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * both Contact and EmailUser have similar outputs: an email gets sent to the email address of a registered wiki user (usuall a "role accoutn"). Their mechanics differ in a few ways, in general:
 * EmailUser
 * Requires that the sender be a registered user
 * Requires that the sender have a confirmed email address
 * Requires that the sender not be blocked from sending email
 * Allows the sender to customize the subject
 * Uses a single free-form text box for the sender to enter data
 * Contact
 * Requires the mw:Extension:ContactPage extension be installed on the project (it is not currently installed on enwiki)
 * Allows unregistered users to use the form and enter arbitrary email addresses as the "From" address
 * Requires a developer to program a form (example form mockup: mw:Special:PermaLink/1532145)
 * The form can be very customized and include custom footer messages as well
 * Notably relevant to this discussion, the UX exit from both EmailUser and Contact appear to use the same exit landing page (I haven't actually dug in to the extension code, this is just observational) - which land on the "Email sent" page and display the exact same message detail, from MediaWiki:Emailsenttext. — xaosflux  Talk 16:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Heh, well then never mind for this particular problem! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Personal information
According to WP:OUTING, personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not. [emphasis mine]

Does the OS policy cover job title and work organisation too? I am specifically interested in the first criterion which states removal of non-public personal information. Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing this type information, such as: Phone numbers, home addresses, or workplaces. [emphasis mine]

Thanks, 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone were to say "Primefac has a COI, they work at Acme Industries as the Head of Fireworks Launchers and therefore shouldn't be editing Acme" then yes, it would be suppressible information (provided I hadn't disclosed that on my userpage). Primefac (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This ought to be renamed, no? Otherwise it appears Orwellian.
The very nature of such action makes oversight, as it is commonly understood, impossible. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure how your question matches up with your statement. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s named oversight because the oversighters provide oversight of one another’s use of the tool. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been considered. Minitruth Natureium (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Libel definition - input sought
I've proposed that we amend the definition for libel - input is sought at WP:Libel. Best, Darren-M   talk  23:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Renames
I’m noting that I’ve added this section after discussion on list, and will re-notify the list if any Oversighter wants to comment publicly. This is the standard interpretation of the Oversight team of the existing policy, and we get enough requests related to this that documenting publicly is probably beneficial. As always in rare circumstances we can grant exceptions, but the norm for how we handle these cases is what is now on the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Edits by editProtectedHelper.js
I just came across User talk:Jackmcbarn/editProtectedHelper after a wikibreak. Why were and  suppressed? Was it a bug in my script? Did accidentally manually add something that needed to be suppressed? Was there some sort of malware in their browser that added something extra? ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a problem with the script that returned the entirety of my computer's browser information, including my name and location. It only happened on one machine and one browser, so I suspect it was a conflict between my browser's internet configuration/rules (set by my employer) and the script. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, weird. Since it hasn't happened to anyone since, and JavaScript shouldn't even be able to do that, I guess I will write it off as a fluke. Thanks for letting me know. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Primefac - Those links don't appear to exist any more (404). Would it be okay to unsuppress those edits, or am I missing something?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On the off chance that they were archived somewhere, I'd prefer to leave them suppressed. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Bradv, KrakatoaKatie, and Xeno.

The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process.

This year's timeline is as follows:


 * 7 September to 19 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at.
 * 20 September to 23 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
 * 24 September to 26 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
 * 27 September to 7 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
 * By 14 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katietalk 23:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Temporary change to email address for Oversight
The OTRS system is going to undergo major upgrades starting in a few hours, and lasting 2-3 days. In the interim, to ensure that Oversight is still available to the community, the email address has temporarily been changed to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org, which is usually the private, non-archiving mailing list used by oversighters to discuss requests. Additional moderators will be on duty during this time. The email address attached to User:Oversight has been changed over, and people are urged to use that method for making oversight requests. Other pages that contain the email address will also be modified. Risker (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , the old address is still up at Requests_for_oversight. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Updated.  I'll make note of that one because it's hidden.  Risker (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Noting that the OTRS downtime is now over, and we are in the process of returning all links back to normal. Risker (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , given the large number of pages that need updating in these instances, do you think it would be reasonable for a fully-protected template to hold the OS email address so that if we need to change it in the future it will be one edit that gets 'em all? Primefac (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that would probably be a good idea. We should decide what format we want to standardize; I personally prefer the "mail:to" format over the "nospam" format, since it seems more useful on many of the pages where it would appear. We'll still need to watch out for any newly created pages that don't use the standard template, but it was a fair amount of work to go through it all this time, and even to make up the list of pages used; simplifying the process is a good thing.  The current uses are in both the formats mentioned above, and many are templates within templates, so I'm going to leave it to someone else to do that work to ensure that whatever format is used is compatible with the templates in which they will reside. I'd be inclined to keep a list of the pages using the template on the downtime notes page, or at least a link to whatever search would need to be done to find all instances.  Risker (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy to handle the template-coding side of things. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * should cover pretty much all the uses that mean anything. The  was added to filter out AN(I) archives and the like, which probably don't need to be changed. Using a bare email address or a mailto:// link will increase the amount of spam sent to that address compared to nospam because of automated scrapers. I'd suggest continuing to use nospam. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ohh, I didn't know that, ; that's really useful information.  Given that we've had a (minor) problem with spam in the OTRS queue, your idea makes sense.  Risker (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * All relevant (and a few accidental irrelevant) uses converted to use Oversight email, which is fully-protected. Primefac (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 September 2020
Add Used in system to the documentation. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Primefac (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Village pump discussion related to "Oversight blocks" section
There is a village pump discussion on the wording in (WP:OSBL), which is related to the language in the "Oversight blocks" section. If you are interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   10:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

TfD merge discussion notification
There's an ongoing discussion at TfD regarding the merge of Template:Suppressed. I feel thoughts from oversighters would be helpful to the discussion. It's here, if interested. Some relevant discussion on the matter can also be found here. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Suppressing workplace information
Hello. I was recently reverted by GeneralNotability for changing the scope of suppression from "workplaces" to "work addresses". I should point out that "workplaces" can be construed to include "employer names", but that information is not necessarily eligible for suppression. I recently submitted an Oversight request where a person's employer was mentioned on an article, but the request was denied. It appears that WP:OSPOL is meant to address information that can be used to threaten the safety or security of a person, and employer name doesn't necessarily rise to that level of protection. Edge3 (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Employers of an editor would be suppressed. In an article, it may be suppressed depending on the circumstances. The policy is in my opinion fine as is. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The policy doesn't make a distinction between the private information of an editor, versus that of the subject of an article. It seems to me that the policy is vague. Also I should point out that the policy uses the term "non-public", yet doesn't define it. Biographical information could be posted on someone's social media account, or on public records such as those held by a government agency, yet still be considered "non-public" because it wasn't meant for widespread consumption. The policy doesn't address this as currently written. Edge3 (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of this is discretionary. The oversight policy tends to be shades of grey because of the nature of the content involved, and individual oversighters have a lot discretion on how to implement it. It very much depends on the specific circumstances and the vagueness of the oversight policy in this regard is a feature. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Non-public personal information about deceased people

 * 1) Is it allowed to suppress names of victims died in event (such as child murder cases)?
 * 2) Is it allowed to suppress names of people that is presumed dead per WP:BDP?

--GZWDer (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Remove criterion 5 from the policy list
I cannot see a single reason, now that admins have the needed tools, that there is a need for oversight of mere vandalism. Revdel is fine for all edits that are merely vandalism and not libelous, which is covered by criterion 2. RD3 exists for a reason. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose you can't see a single reason because...well...they're suppressed. This criterion is rare but is used from time to time to deal with what tends to just get lumped in as vandalism (but could include serious BLP violations, and a pile of other things). One of its uses is to deal with edit filters, where there is either "visible" or "suppressed" and nothing in between; although it doesn't seem to be an issue right now, it has been a problem in the past with other extensions. Some of my colleagues may identify other examples. Risker (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 *  Deferring support or oppose  until I hear more from oversighters about whether THEY think this is needed. Thank you  for providing your input.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do a suppression that falls under OSPOL 5 probably once or twice a month. I know that's not a huge amount, but you wanted my thought so here it is. Primefac (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What is an example of content that would solely fall under OSOPOL 5? Obviously you can't name any specific cases but I would like to know when it is needed. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The one that comes to mind first is a vandal username that isn't necessarily a direct attack on someone (therefore failing OSPOL 2 & 4) but needs suppression. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Risker. We also don’t want a strict Oversight policy where people are worried about what to suppress and what not to suppress. Think about the nature of the tool. These type of things are always discussed. There are a lot of reasons why limiting the oversight policy would be a very bad idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We know that people who can oversight an edit are smart enough to not oversight poop. If they do it, it's because there is a good reason. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth noting here that this criterion is hardly ever used. "Vandalism" is not one of the options in the dropdown for the suppression tool, and nearly all suppressions fall into either the personal information or the libel/defamation categories instead. Nevertheless, there are occasional edits outside of those two categories that are so vile and revolting that the best thing for the project is to make them invisible even to administrators. I wouldn't want this criterion to be used any more frequently than it already is (WP:RD3 is sufficiently appropriate in all but the most severe cases), but at the same time I don't see what could possibly be gained by removing this option from policy altogether. – bradv  🍁  15:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose change - it sounds like every use of this criteria would be a good use of WP:IAR if the criteria did not exist ("there are occasional edits outside of those two categories [where] the best thing for the project is to make them invisible even to administrators." User:Bradv, 15:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)) and they are used often enough that relying on WP:IAR over a dozen times a year for basically the same issue puts more pressure than necessary on WP:IAR, which by design should be used for cases so exceptional that nobody has seen a need to create a rule or guideline for them before. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose; it might not be the most frequently used reason for requesting OS, but it's still used steadily and consistently. 4thfile4thrank, you seem to be making a lot of weird suggestions and requests that have no chance of being accepted recently; this is just a suggestion not an order, but you might want to consider dialling it back a little. We're more than 21 years old; while we're certainly not perfect, a of things that might not seem obvious are nonetheless there for a reason and if we're not doing something, we've likely discussed it at length and come up with good reasons not to do it. &#8209; Iridescent 16:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 May 2021
Re-add the IRC option, but with the Libera chat template instead of Freenode. Libera is working well. aeschylus (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Primefac (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to change the Oversight logo
The current Wikipedia logo uses the Wikipedia logo dating all the way back to 2003. That image, however, is scaled quite weirdly, has questionably-scaled pieces in the small hole created by the missing pieces, and has a blot of gray pixels at the top, which is a reflection of the problems of the old logo. That said, I got a 3D version of the puzzle globe and deleted the pieces much like in the current Oversight logo. After rendering, it looks significantly better than the old version, although not exactly like the Wikipedia logo (since this is an SVG file, which doesn't have the backside pieces available). It's been quite a while since the current logo was made (2009), so can it (finally) be replaced with this newer and cleaner version? Feel free to suggest changes to the proposed logo. Your thoughts on this would be very much appreciated. Chlod (say hi!) 18:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe it could be a bit brighter to be more similar to the Wikipedia logo? — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 18:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You might want to note this at WP:VPWMF. The WMF owns the trademark on this logo, it is not just another free image. They may not care if you change it but they should prbably be looped into the conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ with Special:Diff/1017634753. Thanks for the advice! Chlod (say hi!) 21:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. besides the obviously ne3ded update, on the old one the empty section on the bottom looks convex instead of concave to me. The new one doesn't. BTW those three puzzle pieces that are removed; what languages do they represent? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia logos, it's Cyrillic i (И), Hebrew vav (ו), and Kannada va + (i) (ವಿ). Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 21:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Darn. I was hoping that is wouldn't be Arabic, Hebrew, or any other language where somebody could accuse us of making a political statement. Oh, well, it could be worse; imagine the complaints if Taiwan had a different language fro mainland China and we "deleted" it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I quite liked the shadowy visual effect in the missing pieces in the current logo, which seems to be lost in the general lightening of the logo Nosebagbear (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Too dark vs. too light, IMO. Maybe somewhere between? Could we please see row of candidates from light to dark and see what the consensus is? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Modern Oversight logo (for testing).png
 * This is the midway point between and 's comments: Visible shadow and pieces on the inside of the globe, with a generally bright exterior. How does that look? Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 15:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a big fan of those shadows. I was hoping for the "Proposed Oversight logo" with the addition of some subtle blurry shadows in the bottom part only as seen on the "Current Oversight logo". Definitely keep the edge you added to the rear piece right above the Omega. Way better than the abrupt gray to white edge the previous versions had. Right now it looks better than the "Wikipedia logo", so please make a version with all the puzzle pieces so I can propose replacing the current version. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also not a big fan of the shadows. I might go ahead and make the spot of light inside of the globe darker so that it doesn't stand out as much. I'm having issues finding out what you meant by the "subtle blurry shadows" – would that be inside or outside the globe? Also, the original Wikipedia logo is an SVG file, unlike the Oversight logo which is a PNG file. The above Wikipedia logo is used on all wikis (and also trademarked by the WMF) because that version can easily scale to multiple resolutions, whereas a rendered PNG file of a 3D object cannot. Changing it would require a proposal to the entire Wikimedia community, and I don't think this 3D version is superior to the SVG file. Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 16:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being unclear. Look at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oversight_logo.png ] look at the puzzle piece right below the Omega (is that Korean?). Now look at the tab sticking on the right into the empty space below the Wikipedia W. Ignore the really dark part (which kind of looks like a sharp-edged shadow but I think is a poorly-drawn attempt to make the edge the same dark gray as the others). Look at the inside wall behind that tab. There is a shadow, but it has softened edges. There is another shadow cast by the bottom of the W. The newer design don't have that. I think they should. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * According to File:Glyphs_in_Wikipedia_logo.png that glyph is Chinese. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't care one way or the other, but my impression is that we aren't the only project using this, and so the discussion should probably be at Meta as well, or at least outreach to other projects that use this image should be made. There's nothing more annoying than sudden change, especially of things that routinely are placed on user pages.  Risker (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already done this back in October 2020. Maybe the lighting in my version looks more accurate to the current Wikipedia logo than Chlod's? -- Ljcool2006 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO that's almost perfect. Wikipedia Oversight (2020).png One quibble; above the omega we see the back side of a puzzle piece. The edge of that piece should get more light. It almost looks like it has zero thickness until you notice the low-contrast edge. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That one looks really good - could we get it added to the top row (whenever I try and pile images next to each other it always goes wrong) for comparison? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit late to the discussion. The thing I like most about the current design is the contrast between the dark part where the tiles are removed and the lighter parts. This image is most often used at a very small size, e.g. in topicons or userboxes, so it's important to make sure that the icon is clearly identifiable at topicon sizes (e.g. 20px). I don't think any of the proposed designs are: Modern Oversight logo.pngWikipedia Oversight (2020).pngModern Oversight logo (for testing).pngWikipedia Oversight (2020).png. Current design for reference: Oversight logo.png. Mz7 (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the part where the tiles are removed could have its brightness bumped down with a bitmap editor? — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 19:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Could also just add a semi-transparent black sphere within the globe to obscure some of the light. Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 22:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Is anyone who works on images still reading this? I have been waiting a month for a response to my comment about the top edge of the back side of a puzzle piece above the omega. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

OSPOL #1 updated
I do not disagree in principle with your change to OSPOL #1 to include "most threats of self-harm". However, I am surprised to learn that "currently accepted practice" amongst the Oversighters is inconsistent with the Oversight policy, and that the Oversight team feels that the best way to fix that is to quietly update the policy to expand their privileges. This isn't how it should work, and that is especially true for the functionary tools, where the community has virtually no way to ensure that the policy is being followed. Are there any other areas you are aware of in which it is "currently accepted practice" to use the Oversight tool in violation of the consensus version of WP:OSPOL? Additionally, as a drafting note, OSPOL #1 states "non-public personal information" and then provides a list of examples which are pretty clearly personally identifiable information. Including "threats of self-harm" in this category is a fairly substantial re-drafting of OSPOL #1 from a tool to suppress non-public PII to a tool to suppress any information about a person that the Oversight team does not believe is public. This should be a very clear and narrow policy. Is it your intention to allow the use of oversight to suppress non-public PII plus threats of self-harm (in which case they are unrealated, and the self-harm thing really should be its own, new, criterion, not stuffed under the PII one), or do you have a more expansive definition of "personal information" that you would like to share? ST47 (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As a functionary, you would have received my email to functionaries-en on Monday, August 30, 2021, as well as been privy to the resultant discussion. I am certain that thread will provide you with adequate answers to the above queries. I understand that this has clearly frustrated you, but I really don't appreciate the accusatory tone of your message. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 05:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The same mailing list where you were advised not to respond to this thread? (As if ignoring questions about a unilateral change in policy will bring about any result other than a revert!) I would prefer that changes to policy be discussed in a public forum. ST47 (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - I have no issue in replying and defending my bold edit, and I hope by doing so you appreciate that I'm not trying to have a "behind closed doors" conversation That being said, there's very little I can add to this conversation which I haven't already covered in the edit itself - I "merely" (for want of a much better word, excuse me) updated policy to match the consensus of the people in which it governs. As I am certain you understand, this subject is very emotive and feelings run high - no one wants to have to deal with the very real possibility that you are reading and hiding an editors darkest moments. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 08:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 's characterization of the thread is an accurate one, there was absolutely a suggestion made to not respond here from someone above the normal functionary level, and the suggestion that they are trying to make a stink about it. Disappointing. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me!  11:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to express my support for TNT's actions here. As several oversighters I've argued with (plus current ArbCom, whom I've emailed complaining about this) are well aware, I am unhappy with the current state of affairs in which off-wiki OS consensus apparently includes suppressing threats of harm. I also agree with ST47's comment that the community has virtually no way to ensure that the policy is being followed. However, I have no problem with updating OSPOL to include threats of self-harm if that will bring policy into line with practice, my complaint is just that there are "accepted uses" of OS that are not documented in OSPOL and that the community is not aware of. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * For the record, this has been a use of the OS policy for years. I can think of cases from before I passed RfA where it was used that way, and based on what other Oversighters have said, it has been used in this way over a decade. I also don't disagree with TNT's change, but I think the best solution would have been explaining to anyone who complained that their interpretation of the policy was wrong rather than adding to the policy.The policy list use cases as principles, and then lists examples of somethings that fall under each bullet. Probably in the top 2 reasons for suppression is a minor self-disclosing themselves; that's nowhere to be found in the text of the policy but it is so common it has its own drop-down in the revdel tool (as anyone who is an admin can tell you.) That's a logical extension of the private information criteria as a child doesn't have the capacity to understand the risks and we don't need to update the policy to reflect this. We also will on occasion suppress self-revealed information from people early in their wiki-career on the principle that they don't understand how wikis work and that self-revelation is forever.Both of these flow from the same principle, but they're not directly mentioned: I do not consider either to be a violation of the policy, and I don't think the policy needs to be updated to include them either. On a similar front, someone's mental health status at one of the darkest points of their life is obviously private information, and if they're in a state of mental stress to that point, they don't have the capacity to publish it at that moment.If we're going to make a change, my preference would be to make it clear that the list of private information is not all inclusive, and I think that could be done easily if someone wants to make the edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm actually a little surprised that wording like this was never used. Primefac (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's a good change, and is my existing understanding of the policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, our precedent has indeed been to consider threats of self-harm "non-public personal information". Indeed, this is someone's health status we are talking about—not to mention a glimpse of one of the darkest moments of someone's life. I can think of few pieces of information more personal and more non-public than that. Mz7 (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My concern is that OSPOL #1 was "personal information" with a list of examples of PII, and the addition of this example - even though it is completely reasonable to seek to suppress threats of self-harm - forces a much broader reading of non-public personal information than could previously be supported by the list of examples - one which could be read to include, for example, "my favorite color is blue", or "I am an engineer", or "I prefer to code in Python" (or perhaps "{some BLP} is a Christian"...). It would be better to specifically call out threats of self-harm as an alternative in the definition of OSPOL #1, or else to create a new OSPOL #6, to avoid creating this situation where OSPOL #1 is so broad as to be a blank check. What about wording OSPOL #1 as Removal of non-public personal information or mental health information. Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing this type of information, including (but not limited to):?
 * And to respond to about the common case of self-disclosures by a minor - well, if you're suppressing a date of birth, or a name, or even an age and location, then that is part of policy as PII. The fact that Oversighters use their discretion to suppress information about minors proactively is not inconsistent with this policy. I don't see this as an argument that this policy is "meant to be broken", I think it's already covered. (However, for better consistency, it might be helpful to decide on an age cutoff for this sort of proactive suppression, and add it to the examples? Identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public or who are under the age of 16...) ST47 (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the policy is meant to be broken — I agree that it's not inconsistent with the policy to suppress information about minors or even adults who don't understand how wikis work and reveal too much on their first day with an account — but I also don't think that suppressing non-public information about someone such as health information is inconsistent with the policy as it is written now.I'd also oppose your suggested wording because I think it would narrow the policy from one that is fairly expansive and gives discretion with how to deal with issues surrounding privacy that would legitimately fall under suppression as non-public personal information, but might not strictly be PII or mental health related (example: someone's HIV status.) I think Primefac's change solves the problem of people interpreting the policy differently than it has historically been interpreted by the Oversight team: the list is not an exclusive list, but rather some of the more common examples. There can be circumstances which arise (such as with mental health issues) where we would suppress even if not listed, and we have done that for years. I don't think there needs to be any change to the policy, like I've said on-list and here, I don't think TNT's change was necessary, and while I really do respect your and GN's position on this and think I have good relationships with both of you, I do think your interpretation of the policy is not consistent with how it has been interpreted since I've been active on-wiki as an editor and as an oversighter.To be consistent with that position, I'm fine with keeping TNT's change to make it clear we do suppress those, but I would prefer no additional changes other than the one's that have already been made because I don't think the policy is broken. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is where we disagree: I simply don't see it as broadening the definition of "non-public personal information" into a blank check—I see it as falling under the definition as originally stated. The oversight team, just like Wikipedia as a whole, operates on common sense and precedent. If you come to us and request oversight for "my favorite color is blue", that would of course be ridiculous because we have not historically considered that "non-public personal information". On the other hand, we have historically considered someone's mental health status to fall under this category, so I don't see any need to break it out into a new OSPOL #6. Mz7 (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , the problem as I see it is one of transparency: I don't necessarily disagree with your/Tony's interpretation of these mental health situations as information that should be hidden for privacy reasons, the problem is that your interpretation is not what I'd consider obvious to outsiders. You mention precedent, but the overwhelming majority of editors can't see internal OS discussions and so won't be aware of that precedent, and I don't think the average person would see "PII" and think "threats of self-harm". Basically, I think the community needs to be aware of some of the less obvious precedents/interpretations of OSPOL, with the knowledge that any such list will not be exhaustive. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would be extremely difficult to provide any information about precedents here without compromising editor safety or privacy. I have an example in mind from over 10 years ago, but if I gave you any details about it at all publicly someone would be able to figure it out (or think they've figured it out), and that would have a negative effect on people's real lives. But at the same time I am confident that if you were entrusted with the details of the example I have in mind you would agree that it was handled properly. I think the bottom line is this – we need to have trust in our functionaries that they have the best interest of the project and its editors at heart. The job often is not easy, and at times quite stressful, but the internal OS list is there for functionaries to support each other and hold each other accountable (and in my experience does an excellent job at both of these). Dealing with mental health issues and threats of suicide is difficult, and it's not something anyone should have to do alone, but it simply can't be done in the open. Not even in terms of hypotheticals or generalizations – this community is simply too small for that to work.  At any rate, this is by no means a substantive change to practice or policy. Suppressing "medical information" has been listed as a common practice (although not on this particular page) since at least 2009. –  bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  02:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt you're right, but the community has almost no (heh) oversight here. I do trust our functionaries, but "just trust us" can be hard to accept when a group is both responsible for interpreting the policies that apply to it and for internally enforcing those policies on itself. That goes double for OS, where there's basically no data available to non-OSers to contest the use of suppression. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear you, and this is why both the oversight list and ArbCom take complaints about the use of suppression very seriously. By necessity, the oversight group has a "suppress first, ask questions later" philosophy, so it's very common for suppressions to be overturned upon review. According to policy, an email must be sent to the list anytime someone is "oversight blocked" where it gets reviewed by the other oversighters, and this practice is usually also followed any time an action is unusual, potentially controversial, or contested. I know it's not perfect, and it's pretty easy to imagine some sort of nefarious clique that's suppressing the Truth™ or something, but in practice the system does work well. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  02:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * PII isn't listed anywhere in the policy: non-public personal information is. That's historically been interpreted much more broadly than what is traditionally thought of as PII, and changing the definition to only be PII now would be a fairly major shift in the policy.As an example, if a Wikimedian was public with who they were but had not revealed some aspect of their life — such as their sexuality or religion — we would suppress that without question. That doesn't necessarily meet the definition of PII, but it would be a non-controversial suppression.If you want to take this thought experiment a bit further: if a Wikimedian with a known identity had actually self-harmed in real life, and someone posted on their talk page revealing details about it that the person had not revealed on-wiki, I think that would be a fairly non-controversial suppression. It's not PII, but it is private information about an individual they have not self-revealed. Going back to the principle that the Oversight team has consistently applied for years: if someone lacks the capacity to reveal information that would otherwise be suppressed, we will suppress. If someone is making a threat of self-harm on the project, we can safely assume they lack that capacity. Since we would suppress in cases where someone else revealed it, we suppress in these cases as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay so what do we do now....?
I have had alot on my plate IRL and was only peripherally aware of this discussion. My experience is that threats of self-harm have been suppressed. I've not done suppressing myself so am not the person best placed to really opine in detail, but only to add that trying to decipher a serious from non-serious threat of self harm via an edit without any clinical context is too big an ask for any functionaries really. Anyway, how shall we proceed here? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I should add it's after midnight Sydney time so am going to sleep, but this page strikes me as being left in an unresolved state that we should sort out now. Seen y'all in about 6-7 hours..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I self-reverted my unilateral and disputed change, so there's nothing to resolve. Status quo. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 14:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I plan on going with the precedent we have set for ourselves internally and suppress first (+ emailing T&S), discuss second, and potentially revert third if necessary. Primefac (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (brushing teeth and drooling toothpaste on keyboard) in which case this should be reflected in policy, both on this page and on Responding to threats of harm. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? Isn't the point here that it doesn't need to be in policy? The oversight corp self-governs, doesn't it? The community don't need to know ~TNT (she/they • talk) 14:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For the former, my change to make OSPOL#1 not an exhaustive list probably does that. For the latter, Point 3 can probably be changed from "contact an admin" to "contact an OSer", since further down the page we tell the admins to contact us anyway. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We'll still suppress threats of self-harm as we always have, per WP:RFO and WP:EMERGENCY. The only remaining point of contention is whether that needs to be listed here, and if so, how it should be worded. Personally I think this page should give an accurate description of common practices so as to avoid the kind of confusion that led to this discussion, and I thought 's addition was a good starting point for that. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  14:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're in the minority Brad, not that consensus has anything to do with self-governance. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 14:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * On that note, everyone should probably be aware that I made those (unilateral) changes. Go dispute them too. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 14:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @TheresNoTime, that's not a novel change to policy. That type of information has been listed onwiki as suppressible since at least 2009. It's perfectly reasonable to want this page to reflect that consensus, and I find no fault with your efforts to do so. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  14:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is what it is Brad. I'm fucking astounded at people who I really used to respect wanting to opt for bureaucracy. It's deeply upsetting as someone who has, in the past, been there that the most trusted individuals on the English Wikipedia would rather act like a real cabal, show actual disdain for the community and at best indifference to mental health. Ain't a group of people I overly want to be a part of. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 14:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I mentioned this on-list (and I think I've said in some form everything I've said in private in public, because I do think transparency is important in these discussions), but I think a lot of the confusion comes from misunderstanding the list of examples below as the only types of information we suppress. 's change alleviates that, but it might be better to simply remove the examples if they are going to be a source of confusion. If we're going to have a list, I don't have a problem with including self-harm on it, but if we do keep a list of examples we should also beef up the language making it clear that suppression can be used when there is a serious threat of real world harm to privacy or health, even if it doesn't fit neatly in the examples., the issue I think some of us are concerned about is that in addition to threats of self-harm there are many other types of information that could have an extremely negative impact on someone if made public that do not neatly fit into the blanket of PII, but does clearly fit into the criteria of personal non-public information (and example I gave above was HIV status; but you can go beyond that to ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc.) We routinely suppress all of these things non-controversially and I think with broad community support. Some of the discussion above seemed to be taking a much narrower view on that.If we want to have the most transparency perhaps including language along the lines of any information about an individual's activities off Wikipedia that they have not revealed about themselves or where they did not understand the implications of posting the information of Wikipedia. The goal here is to protect as many people as possible and while I definitely agree that threat's of self-harm fall under the criteria, we need to be very clear that the Oversight team can act if there is a situation that is a serious threat to someone's privacy even if it isn't in our list of examples. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I've skimmed this discussion and I am astounded. Suppressing threats of self-harm has been done for years, and policy or not, is the right thing to do. --Rschen7754 00:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Policy is intended to reflect practice, not to dictate it, and this has been the practice for the decade I have been on the oversight team. This isn't done punitively, it is done for the protection of people in crisis. There's precious little we can do for someone experiencing a mental health crisis, not letting it be public information and contacting the back office to direct resources their way is about it, and we should continue to do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to remove the list of examples, then we need a better definition of "personal information". The current set of examples defines it pretty clearly as information which could be used to identify a person. So if we want to remove the examples and replace it with a definition, we need a similarly clear definition that does what you need. I suggested something along the lines of "PII or mental health information" above, I still haven't heard whether there is any other category of information which it is "currently accepted practice" to suppress, but which is not yet covered by this policy. ST47 (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that while the vast majority of "personally identifying information" is "non-public personal information", not all non-public personal information is pii. It doesn't have to identify someone to be considered personal, and has been repeatedly said by the OSers here, we do not want to paint ourselves into a box by essentially saying "we will only consider X and Y". Primefac (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As with most policies, the list of examples are just that, examples, not an exhaustive list. Trying to create a perfect rule that specifically defines exactly what will and will not be suppressed is not a worthwhile use of anyone's time. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They may not be an exhaustive list, but they do define the space of what the policy could be construed to cover. When all of the examples are tightly clustered around information that could identify a person, it's clear what the intended meaning of the policy is. It clarifies the vague wording of "personal information". Adding some other example that doesn't fit the pattern has the effect of re-defining the policy. Which is why either OSPOL #1 should be written more precisely non-public personally identifiable information or mental health information or this new thing should become its own OSPOL #6. ST47 (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the disagreement here is about who is actually suggesting a change to the policy. While I do respect your view on this, I think your proposed wording change would be the most significant change to the oversight policy since the introduction of suppression in that it would significantly narrow what could be suppressed and essentially go against the last decade of understanding of what this policy means. I also think reading through these discussions and being aware of the views of most of the oversight team, most other people who have commented here or are familiar with the oversight policy would view your position as being the change to the policy, while the position of those of us thinking the wording is broad would be the status quo. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but I have no objection to suppressing threats of self-harm. I am trying to ensure that this small change to the oversight policy doesn't turn OSPOL #1 from the fairly narrow meaning given by its current wording and examples, into a blank check to suppress anything that anyone could argue is "personal information". ST47 (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the cat is already out of the bag on that one. In the US, for example, you could argue that home addresses are not "non-public information" since property deeds are a matter of public record. Ditto with SDBAM. Even false non-public information is sometimes suppressed. --Rschen7754 04:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Why the fuck is this still being discussed on-wiki? I thought the list was adamant that we don't need to get the community involved and then proceeded to gaslight anyone who dared suggest otherwise? Why would we even consider informing the community who trust us to correctly apply these tools? In what possible world would we then update the only publicly auditable part of the oversight process? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 00:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's still being discussed because you were correct. You identified a disparity between accepted practice and written policy, and made an attempt to resolve it (isn't that how all policy is written?). We all agree that suppressing threats of self-harm has been common practice for years, and remains the right thing to do, so there is no good and healthy reason to keep any of this a secret from the community. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  01:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm frankly not sure what this sub-thread is about. ST47 (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * TNT, oversighters mutually self-police and self-regulate the use of the the oversight tool. They do not self-govern in terms of the oversight policy itself. You do not have the authority to rewrite the mandatory external policy, and project-specific expansions to the external policy are subject to the jurisdiction of the local community and no one else. I understand that these suppressions themselves apparently uncontentious amongst the oversight team, and are considered to be within the purview of the existing policy as it is already written. I understand that you view this as a clarification in wording, not a policy change. However, you cannot shut out the community on this. Your insistence that this is not to be talked about on-wiki and the community is to be kept in the dark is wrong, and frankly, unconscionable. You must not let your privilege of confidentiality grow into a belief that you are not accountable to the community. I'm actually not trying to come at you with any sort of biting personal condemnation or criticism here. But please stop insisting that this is to be hidden from the community. It's just wrong. Hope you are well. ~Swarm~  {sting} 07:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , TNT's comment above was rather dark sarcasm, not an actual suggestion that public discussion stop. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's breaking confidentiality to say that TNT has not at any point seriously suggested keeping the community in the dark. Of course, Swarm could not know that, so taken in context his comment is understandable. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all of TNT's comments here reference the fact that oversighters self-govern and the community should be kept in the dark. If she's actually cynically alluding to comments made to her by other oversighters, then I apologize to her. However that would imply that there are oversighters who do still need this reminder. Changes to oversight policy are within the community's jurisdiction and even something like this needs to be transparently explained to the community. Just because you guys deal with private data does not mean that you can unilaterally rewrite OS policy behind closed doors. ~Swarm~  {sting} 01:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It is so deeply saddening to me that so many hurt feelings have resulted from a question whose answer is one that almost all of us fundamentally agree on. Yes, threats of self-harm may be and have been suppressed—almost no one seems to object to that. The question that seems to have been troubling some people is whether the oversight policy as currently written allows for this suppression to occur. In the view of most of the oversight team, we believe the answer is yes: threats of self-harm fall under the "non-public personal information" criterion because they expose sensitive information about an editor's mental health status, and there are very few pieces of information that are more non-public and more personal than that. The challenging part of being an oversighter is that the broader community is not permitted to review our specific actions. Whenever someone comes to us and asks, "Why was that diff suppressed?", we are oftentimes not allowed to provide a forthright answer. Alternatively, if we ever have a question like, "Should this specific situation involving [diff] be suppressed?", we are not allowed to go the broader community on a public forum and ask. This is why, over the course of the past decade and beyond, the oversight team has turned to each other for these kinds of questions, and because of this, we have developed certain precedents on dealing with specific situations that have been informed by real-life examples that the broader community is not privy to. This is also why, on the private functionaries mailing list, I expressed hesitation towards going straight to the community with a village pump question like, "Should we suppress threats of self-harm?" The oversight team uniformly agreed on the answer to this question, so I didn't see the need to request clarification. If there are members of the community who have questions about whether we should suppress threats of self-harm, my view is that they should be the ones to either contact the Arbitration Committee if they have questions about a specific use of suppression or start an on-wiki discussion if they have questions about a general use case for suppression. As the oversight team, we should not feel obligated to do this work on their behalf unless there is substantial disagreement or confusion among ourselves as to what the policy is or should be.  This is also why, privately on the mailing list, I suggested that it was not a good idea to update the oversight policy in such a bold manner. It is not because I disagree with the substance of what TheresNoTime wrote or because I have "disdain for the community" or "indifference to mental health" (nothing could be further from the truth), but rather, because I am afraid that it has created more confusion here than clarification. Part of me gets where ST47 is coming from above: if we genuinely believed that what we were doing was already justified under the policy as written, then why should we feel the need to expand the policy? By boldly updating the text of the policy without an on-wiki discussion, it is hard to avoid the perception that we are trying to slip something in the backdoor and "quietly update the policy to expand their privileges". That is, of course, not what TheresNoTime's intention was at all, and now that she has updated the text of the policy, I find myself wanting to make sure that TheresNoTime's revision remains in the policy because to remove it might cast doubt or create confusion as to the validity of suppressing threats of self-harm.   I see that earlier today, you asked for your oversight permission to be removed.  I feel overwhelmingly guilty for that. Over the past couple days, I have definitely lost some sleep—it devastates me to think that I may have jeopardized my working relationship with you. I hope beyond hope that you might reconsider. Mz7 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that pretty much everyone commenting here is an OS, why not just figure this out between yourselves on the list? If the point is that the community figures it out, then the veil of secrecy and general atmosphere probably isn’t conducive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Bradv and KrakatoaKatie. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process. This year's timeline is as follows:
 * 6 September to 18 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at.
 * 19 September to 23 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
 * 24 September to 26 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
 * 27 September to 6 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
 * By 17 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katietalk 11:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Question for functionaries
On tonight's Empty Category list, Category:Wikipedia functionary statistics showed up. Typically, I tag empty categories the next day but it is unusual to see Wikipedia project-related categories on this list, it's almost entirely categories for either main space articles or for other categories so I thought I'd bring it up in case you had an ongoing use for this category.

Yesterday, I noticed in the Deletion log, that quite a lot of templates and template-related pages that contained functionary stats from the past few years were deleted. I'm not sure if this was a decision supported by functionaries themselves or just the result of a discussion among the few number of editors who participate in TFD discussions. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:CheckUser. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To keep discussion together, please reply at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser. Thryduulf (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

RFO edit request
Per HTML5, please change

to

Old:

New:

at Requests for oversight. Thanks. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 09:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Primefac (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Safeguarding
Per this discussion at ANI, I wanted to open a discussion here about having a clear way to deal with personal information posted by children or potentially vulnerable adults. The consensus in that discussion was to amend WP:OSPOL to add a second-level bulletpoint under Phone numbers, home addresses ... etc. that reads Personal information may be removed for safeguarding reasons if posted by children or vulnerable individuals. In addition to this, to add a new section called "Safeguarding" to the WP:CHILDPROTECT policy, which gives a brief explanation that concerns should be dealt with under the oversight policy. Theknightwho (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We had a similar discussion above at . This is already within the policy as the decade-plus interpretation of the Oversight team is that people need to understand the implications of self-revealing their information on Wikipedia, and if they do not have the capacity to consent to self-reveal (such as minors or individuals who are vulnerable for whatever reasons) it will be treated as non-public personal information and suppressed. At least a few months ago, there is relatively strong opposition from the Oversight team to changing the policy as it would imply that the items listed at OSPOL1 were an exclusive list, which they are absolutely not. In this situation, I guess the analogous concern would be that we can't really say when something would fit under this criteria, and you don't necessarily want to box yourself in.Also, for what its worth, these type of suppressions are one of the most common out there already. I've also alerted the team to this discussion on the oversight list. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I feel I should emphasise that this concern comes primarily from the fact that for people not on the Oversight team (and for whom this policy won't be familiar), there is no obvious way to raise safeguarding concerns at the moment. That's the reasoning behind wanting to link WP:CHILDPROTECT here - so that people know to bring things to your attention. Adding something along these lines should help in making sure that reports end up being reported correctly, and don't end up at WP:ANI or wherever like the report this arose out of.In terms of the non-exclusivity of the list, surely that's just a case of saying so in the policy? Theknightwho (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For a bit of context here: I just went to the suppression log. These type of suppressions were the single most common reason over the last 500 suppressions (198/500 was self-disclosure by a minor; next most commons was non-public personal information with 185/500; Libel was 61/500; IP addressed were 32/500. Didn't look at the rest.) That's just by Ctrl+Fing for the dropdown text associated with minor children. I'm assuming some of the non-public information ones were of minors, vulnerable adults, or people who didn't understand how Wikipedia worked.I guess my point of view is that if this is already the single most used suppression reason based on the last 500 log entries, I'm not really sure the problem that you think exists actually exists. We don't tend to go looking for things to suppress proactively. Most of this stuff is reported. I'm certainly in favour of linking to this page from any relevant child protection pages, but I also don't really like the idea of modifying the policy without a very good reason. It works pretty well as written. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is that few people outside of the Oversight team know that, and nothing signposts them here. Although I'm sure things do get reported, this has arisen out of an instance where that lack of signposting meant that the issue didn't make its way to you, and was posted to WP:ANI instead (by an administrator, at that). That is a very good reason to add clarification, and I'm honestly at a loss as to how that could be a problem when it would make no functional difference to how you or the rest of the Oversight team would operate. It would just make it somewhat easier for the rest of us to assist you in that. Theknightwho (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll let other comment, but I guess the two things I disagree with your reply above about are that very few people know it and that it makes no difference. The fact that this is the single most used suppression reason is evidence that many people do in fact know that. I disagree that it makes no difference because any change to the OS policy has the potential to impact future interpretations of it. From best I can tell, the last substantive change to the policy was in 2009 (see diff.) I added this clarification in 2020, but that was purposefully kept out of the policy and is simply a documentation of our standard negative response to requests for rename suppressions to discourage people from requesting them. Actual changes to the policy itself haven't happened in over a decade for a reason: the existing policy has significant precedent behind it and the community is generally aware of what we do and don't suppress. Changing it invites debate over the meaning, which isn't really something we want when its a policy designed to protect real life people.The solution I'd suggest to your concern is something like WP:DOB, mention in the relevant pages outside of this policy that people should contact the oversight team. That gives more visibility like you want, while preserving the policy that's worked for years as is. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The way to circumvent debate over the meaning is to make it absolutely clear that any amendment is clarifying existing practice, and does not (and should not) reflect any change to it - this should be straightforward, given that you'd be simply adding a broad example to a non-exhaustive list that everyone agrees should be covered. If, as you say, there is a shared understanding of what the Oversight team does among the experienced parts of the community, then that isn't going to fall apart by clarifying anything. In fact, I don't see how it adds any new room for interpretation at all, so long as it does genuinely reflect existing practice.Also, while I agree that something similar to WP:DOB is warranted on WP:CHILDPROTECT, it is unsatisfactory for the policy as written not refer to some of its most common applications, because it creates a communication barrier between the Oversight team and the rest of WP that is clearly evidenced by other commenters on this thread (not to mention numerous others on the earlier thread). As you point out: this is a policy that is designed to protect real life people, and so you cannot merely handwave away the idea of improvement by pointing at numerous successes, because the cost of any failures getting through is too high.Fundamentally, if you're going to say "we already do that", then you as a team have the responsibility to make that clear to those of us who don't have the luxury of knowing all of WP's unwritten conventions.Theknightwho (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For the heck of it, why not create an explanatory supplement to WP:OSPOL with a bunch of examples? Because in all honesty people have been confused before. Aside from the ANI thread I've had to ask oversighters for clarification on the boundaries of childprotect on multiple occasions. I've reported dozens of stuff under that criteria (patrolling draftspace is not useless contrary to popular belief) and sometimes I'm still unsure. If we create a supplementary list of more specific examples, we're not limiting the mandate of oversighters and people can throw in all the detail they want. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 08:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't a bad idea, actually. I've opposed making the OSPOL more detailed because of the potential to cabin OSers' discretion, but my first reaction is that an explanatory supplement sounds like a decent idea. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm on board with this. Theknightwho (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue came up because I spotted the behaviour but didn't quite know where to go with it. I only edit sporadically these days after dealing with a suicide note on WP about ten years ago (kind of dampened the "escape from real life" vibe) so am not as au fait with some policy as I used to be. I couldn't find any easily available policy on this one.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  18:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"Surpressor"?
Hey, whoever Watchlists this page,

I have a lot of scripts and one of them posts the permission levels an editor has under their name on their User page and User talk pages. Any way, I went to an editor's page and instead of seeing "Oversight", I saw "Surpressor"! Has this name been changed at the WMF level or do you think this is a problem with the script? I assume the script is just reading information from account data so I think WMF has changed the name. I don't think this is an improvement! "Oversight" implies responsibility while "Surpressor", to me, has negative connotations of censorship or restriction. I know the job duties haven't changed but I wondered what the Oversighters thought about being now called "Surpressors"? It sounds like some kind of domination kink. Opinions? Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The technical name for this group was changed from 'oversighter' to 'suppressor'; this is similar to how our group 'administrators' is technically called 'sysops'. If that script usually overrides to the local name, you can update it there (or ask someone else to). —  xaosflux  Talk 22:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, well, that would be the logical solution! I was just surprised to see the word. I guess I was just unfamiliar with the change. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 06:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The relevant phab task is T112147, where you can read the background to the change and the various comments supporting and opposing it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Help, help, I'm being suppressed! SubjectiveNotability <sub style="margin-left:-12ex"> a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 13:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2022
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Oversight → Suppression – Current nomenclature.&#32;NasssaNser - T 08:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943  (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that the change from "oversighter" to "suppressor" was merely a technical one that "will not affect the name shown to users". I could be wrong, but it's probably best to discuss that at Wikipedia talk:Oversight first. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose (and we did already discuss this on the functionaries list a little bit) - also I think it's going to take a lot more than a RM to rename the "Oversight" suite of things to "Suppress" here on the English Wikipedia. — xaosflux  Talk 23:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Liz's comment in the section above that "suppression" has negative connotations is why the technical renaming was very strongly not endorsed by the en.wiki functionaries and why "oversight" should continue to be the public-facing name where possible. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Only a comment because I don't know the technical backstory & details. In common usage/common meaning "Suppressor" is a very negative and even pejorative term.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For the backstory see T112147. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The common meaning in the US of "Suppressor" is negative and pejorative. Also, borrowing from the next post down,  "The change in MediaWiki was for technical reasons only. This group has never been called that here, and should not be called that here." I think that the ability to separate the two was was a part of what allowed for the technical change to go forward. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The change in MediaWiki was for technical reasons only. This group has never been called that here, and should not be called that here. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "suppressor" should remain only a technical name. Terrible word. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 09:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Current nomenclature? No, oversight is the current nomenclature, the technical name was changed but that's it and requested moves aren't the way to suggest changing the "nomenclature" anyway. Also per above oversight is the better name. Naleksuh (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Like I said above, "Oversight" implies responsibility and protection from harm while "Suppressor" implies censorship and domination. I don't think it should be changed but I don't think that is a realistic probability any way. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gaetr (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Implementing results of the discussion from requested move
IMO the results were to not make the move and to continue to call it "oversight". recognizing that the technical name in the Wikipedia software is "Suppression" Pages that discuss this should do so accordingly. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Short term IP OS Blocks
Hello, regarding Oversight - It is customary for oversighters to submit their OS blocks on the oversight listserv for peer review: recurring list discussions have found little utility in requesting review of short-term IP blocks of this nature. Any objection to calling this out, perhaps as: ...to submit their OS blocks (other than short-term IP blocks) on the oversight listserv...? Reviews are of course always allowed and can be opened by anyone, just looking to update this "best practice" guidance. Thank you for any feedback. — xaosflux  Talk 11:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support addition: Seems like a sensible modification—I'm fairly confident that even then, given how rare oversight blocks tend to be, at least one other oversighter would notice and raise any concerns should they feel the need -- TNT (talk • she/her) 14:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the discussions on-list have been more about the necessity of giving an IP a short-term OS block rather than the necessity of reviewing those blocks. I do not think we need to codify this edge case in either instance, though; the sentence isn't saying that we always get reviews of OS blocks anyway. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree it doesn't require it, but it does document what the best practice recommendations are. I haven't seen enough listserv discussions that short-term ip blocks shouldn't be used in general. — xaosflux  Talk 15:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it would be useful, if we add this, for us to have a common understanding of "short-term block". Myself, I'd say anything up to a week; if an IP needs to be blocked longer than that for OS purposes, then we're probably going to move to a multi-month block.  I'm not sure if we need to codify this, though. Risker (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I was actually going to make a similar comment to Risker (I know, a shock to everyone on the oversight list...) Though, I'd just remove the phrase "short-term" rather than defining it. I actually can't think of the last time we've had a months long IP block for these, and if we did, there are probably better templates than OS block (i.e. it is a proxy)I've been the broken record that we shouldn't be reporting IP blocks to the list for years now, so I obviously support the idea. The advantage to putting it on the page is that we let both the community and each other know it is not expected. Though if we want to make it something we just don't do through internal practice without codifying it I'm fine with that too. I don't think this was ever technically a policy requirement, more of a practice expected within the team/for arbcom oversight and understanding of why a block was made. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support addition. I also think that removing "short-term" rather than defining it is a better way to move forward. These IP OS blocks are rare in the first place, and often Oversighters might not impose an otherwise-needed OS block on an IP simply because they have to take the time to start a discussion on the list and they don't like doing it. This change would likely result in a win/win scenario here.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Added added this (diff.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for restriction of suppression criteria
In 2015 a proposal was made to expand WP:OSPOL #1 to allow the hiding of IP data of editors without an account on request (prior to this date only registered users who had edited logged out could request an IP hiding). The primary purpose of this addendum was to allow for new editors without accounts – who might either be on mobile or otherwise not see or understand the "logged out" warning – to request their IP be hidden. The RFC passed with no obvious opposition and has been standard practice for the Oversight Team since then. However, we have noticed in recent years an increasing prevalence of users asking for hiding of IPs that are either years old or span hundreds of edits (quite literally). After internal discussion, the Oversight Team feels that this goes against the spirit of the intentions behind the initial RFC, which was intended to allow new users to recognise their logged-out editing and correct the issue; by the time the edits are more than a few months old, or when an editor has made more than a few dozen edits, it is well past time that they should have noticed and (if they really were concerned) asked for suppression of their IP.

In other words, I (on behalf of the OS team) am proposing to limit this provision of OSPOL, IP data of editors without an account on request., by appending ... provided that the edits were made recently and are relatively small in number. after [note 1].

Please keep in mind that this proposal is not a hard cutoff, and like with most oversight-related inquiries will allow for exceptions to be made (generally for school-related IPs and the like where a very accurate location can be determined), but will give a better indication to editors of what is assumed to be acceptable for these types of requests. I am also not proposing this as a formal RFC because I feel that it is simply updating our policies with how the Oversight Team currently operates, though if there is any significant opposition provided in the next week or two I am willing to convert it to one. Primefac (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a reasonable change to me. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems eminently sensible. firefly  ( t · c ) 09:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes please. It's not reasonable to expect the OS volunteers to spend hours deleting hundreds of years-old edits because someone has changed their mind about editing as an IP. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. As Primefac says, after a few months or a few dozen edits the user should be aware of that they've done. And hiding perhaps hundreds of edits (and I've seen such requests and received a couple by email) it not just a burden, it leaves a trail of suppressions that could raise questions. Doug Weller  talk 15:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅: diff. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Should REVDEL be mentioned as a possible remedy for DEADNAMING?
Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion regarding WP:DEADNAMING and WP:REVDEL at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Admin protected edit request on 30 July 2022
In Requests for oversight section 4, it says “Gross Vandalism that we would delete if usual deletion tools could deal with it.”. Did the section meant to say “if usual deletion tools could NOT deal with it.”? Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We would delete the content if the usual deletion tools could deal with it. For example, we cannot delete usernames, so we instead must suppress grossly improper user names. In other words, we use suppression when there is no other option for removing the content. This also holds true for the edit filter logs, which can not be deleted or otherwise hidden via any other means than suppression. Primefac (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood, I appreciate the response! Cheers, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"CLICK HERE" link at the top of this page and related pages only works for logged-in users
The link only works for registered users with a registered email, which may misleadingly imply to a person who's been doxed that they have to make a Wikipedia account with a registered email, a tedious process, to get content suppressed. It should be changed to something more user-friendly for non-Wikipedians. PBZE (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Added the address to the header bar. Primefac (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Truly permanent deletions
Can Wikipedia take requests for permanent deletion whereby the content is fully removed from the servers and even oversight or WMF cannot retrieve it? Who would be the contact for this highest level of content removal: oversight, arbcom, or another entity? Altanner1991 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Altanner1991 there is nothing the community can do about that, as it is not supported by processes or community policies. If there is a legal issue, such as the presence of contraban, you may contact the  meta:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department. —  xaosflux  Talk 20:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok so unless I misunderstood, WMF can remove it from the server whereby even they cannot retrieve it. That would make sense. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Altanner1991 WMF owns the servers that host this site, so ultimately yes - they could have their tech teams delete things or even physically destroy storage devices. If contraband (such as child pornography) was involved they would likely also need to get law enforcement involved, and deal with things like purging back ups, etc - all things well beyond the scope of the local project here. — xaosflux  Talk 21:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That is very well explained, thank you so much. Altanner1991 (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

'xpunges information from any form of usual access' hard to understand
Recomend change to 'deletes anything from a page and cannot be reverted without special permissions. :)

120.21.222.76 (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request
Please remove the transclusions wrapped around the color-coded subsection dividers in § How do you contact us?. IOW, please change:

to

and

to

Those sentences are too long to be 'd, and they are forcing the page to render far too wide. FeRDNYC (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, the page that the editor is actually requesting to fix is Requests for oversight, not Oversight. I've adjusted the template accordingly. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 21:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks,, I failed to notice that I was redirected here from Wikipedia Talk:Requests for oversight. (Though I did notice, and even found it odd, that the template was claiming "semi-protected" status for the page in the request... but, stupidly, didn't think to check the title and just chalked it up to a template weirdness.) FeRDNYC (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Courtesy ping to Oshwah who made substantial updates to the wording in August which is when the extensive nowrapping seems at first glance to have originated. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please remove the  left behind from the line:
 * lol1 VNIO ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 11:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)