Wikipedia talk:Oversight/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Cave coordinates

Recently, an editor in this thread expressed the opinion that one or more edits containing coordinates had been oversighted from the Lechuguilla Cave article. I can see in the page history that at least one revision was deleted, but as a non-oversighter I can't see if any revisions were actually oversighted.

1. Could someone check whether any edits have actually been oversighted? This should be a relatively non-controversial thing to check, I think. It is possible that only revision delete was done, not oversight, since it is easy for editors to confuse these processes.
2. I don't think that the coordinates of a cave fall under the oversight policy (or the revision deletion policy). But I would be happy to hear other opinions about that.

Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi CBM, the edit in question was revision-deleted but not suppressed. Risker (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, "the edit in question" means the edit mentioned by CBM above, correct? Also, feel free to ignore this if it would conflict with revision deletion or oversight policy - but if you feel you can comment: Was "the edit in question" (whichever one you refer to in your own comment) an addition of geocoordinates? — Gavia immer (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Gamma, there is an edit visible in the page's history, which admins (including me) can view, which was the addition of coordinates. It was revision deleted, and I think Risker is saying that no additional edits were oversighted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Got it; I didn't recall that you had the admin bit. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#Environmentally sensitive locations. Since I think revision deletion is clearly the way we would go on these edits, if they are suppressed at all, I think we should move the discussion there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

How to request oversight?

This page may mention it, but a simple how-to should be clearly indicated in lead, and the issue should have a separate section, to appear in ToC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• See WP: RFO-- ChromaNebula (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments on the Audit Subcommittee

The Arbitration Committee has conducted an internal review of the Audit Subcommittee and is now seeking comment from the community, in particular about the subcommittee's effectiveness to date and ongoing representation from community delegates ("at-large members").

As the October 2009 election yielded few candidates relative to the number of seats available, it has been suggested that filling the non-arbitrator positions by appointment after community consultation (similar to the previous round of CU/OS appointments) would attract a greater number of suitably qualified candidates.

It has also been suggested that greater numbers of community delegates be appointed to ensure adequate ongoing community representation. Should a sufficient number of suitable candidates apply, the committee will appoint three "primary members" along with a number of "standby members" (who will also receive the CheckUser and Oversight privileges) and would stand in should a primary member become inactive or be unable to hear a particular case.

Comments are invited about the above, as well as any other general comments about the Audit Subcommittee. The Arbitration Committee would like to thank outgoing community members Dominic, Jredmond, and MBisanz for their patience and continued participation on the subcommittee while this review process is ongoing.

The next call for applications is provisionally scheduled for 20 February 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 18:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 7 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 23:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

DMCA take downs

Are oversighters expected to act on new content which violates existing DMCA takedown requests? Or should re-occurences be hand-balled to WP:OFFICE? I ask because I am not sure that there is a list of all prior DMCA take down at wmf:Category:DMCA, so oversighters can't easily know whether or not a DMCA request exists. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to add a note, I think office actions like DMCA takedowns need to be clearly marked as such. There was a problem recently with a "free speech flag" image that easy mysteriously oversighted, for example, where an explanation would have been very helpful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know this question was here: If a material was previously subject to a DMCA takedown, please inform the office and let us make the call on how to handle it. Thanks! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this list of existing DMCA requests public? If it is not available to oversighters at all, we'll need to err on the side of caution and send you anything that sounds like there may have been a prior take-down request. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The ones on the Foundation wiki are the only ones I can positively vouch for. I'm not certain how Mike handled them before, but I would say that if it's not on the Foundation wiki or in Chilling Effects (I'll try to migrate everything from there to Foundation wiki), then it's at your judgment, and please err on the side of caution. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: the list on Foundation wiki includes everything that was in Chilling Effects for DMCA issues. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's a bit more complicated. 2 of the DMCA notices received by the Foundation are no longer in effect due to counter-notices. One of them (Texas Instruments) is listed at Category:DMCA, but the other one (Crosstar) isn't, and never has been. For those two, there is no reason to monitor them any more. Kaldari (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2011)

Effective 1 April 2011, Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs), Courcelles (talk · contribs), and Keegan (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. AGK (talk · contribs) is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term. The Arbitration Committee thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to Dominic (talk · contribs), Jredmond (talk · contribs), and MBisanz (talk · contribs), whose terms in office were extended so that an orderly transfer of responsibility could occur. Dominic will return to his previous role as a CheckUser and Oversighter; MBisanz will assume his role as an Oversighter. The Committee also thanks former subcommittee member Tznkai (talk · contribs), who was one of the original appointees to the Committee in 2009, and resigned in August 2010.

Support: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, PhilKnight, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Xeno

Oppose: None

Abstain: None

Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Iridescent

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Sir Fozzie

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 16:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

RFC on adding viewdeleted privileges to the Oversight bundle

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Make userrights self-sufficient. –xeno^talk 15:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are IP addresses removed?

In the past, a number of sock puppets have requested that their IP addresses be removed from the revision log after they accidentally commented while logged out. These requests were fulfilled, and their IP addresses were removed. My question is, Why? IP addresses are not personally identifiable, yet are treated as such under this policy. Notorious sock puppets are getting increasing difficult to detect because when they do slip up and reveal themselves to in fact be the same editor, they just have it wiped out from the revision history. Is there a valid reason for someone to hide their IP address, other than to hide the fact that one is a sock puppet? ← George ^talk 17:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Suppression vs deletion

I've added the section Wikipedia:Oversight#Suppression vs. deletion to help disambiguate something I found confusing (and that is in some places referred to more or less synonymously), the difference between "suppression" and "deletion" and reasons for it.

Please feel free to correct any error in it; I'm more familiar with what was confusing than with Wikipedia policy details per se. Sai ¿?✍ 23:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the section; one shouldn't edit policies without ensuring there's consensus for inclusion. This policy is about the circumstances under which oversight/suppression can be used, and who can use it. There is another page somewhere or other that goes into great detail about the difference between suppression and revision deletion (I think it might be on the revision deletion page). A very brief overview is included in the header here. I'd like to hear the rationale for your feeling that discussing non-suppression level deletion is significant in this policy. Risker (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What's to discuss? He noted our confusing terminology and I suggested he try to clarify it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is "editing a policy", just clarification of the text itself. I'm not proposing any kind of policy change, just clarity of prose for outsiders. If there's in fact an extant page that explains the difference, I didn't find it going through the links from WP:BLP, so there should at least be a "see more" link here pointing to it. I do think a short summary (or transclusion) is merited, since this page is linked from Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) as the de facto "how to get things deleted" page.

For reference, here's the full text I added:

==Suppression vs. deletion==

Any of Wikipedia's thousand-odd admins, including Oversighters, can "delete" a revision or article. This makes the item in question visible only to other admins, and is suitable for removal of e.g. information that is private but not highly sensitive or secret such that it would cause serious harm if revealed.

Any of Wikipedia's dozen or so Oversighters can "suppress" a revision or article. This is effectively the same as "deletion", except the information would only be then visible to other Oversighters, of whom there are fairly few. This is more suitable e.g. for removal of information that is sensitive enough to be concerned about the potential for a Wikipedia admin leaking it.

Cheers, Sai ¿?✍ 01:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well, that makes more sense in the deletion policy than in the oversight policy. I suggest fixing the "Contact us" page, because this page shouldn't be linked in that way. Incidentally, there is no requirement that oversighters be administrators. Risker (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

  Both lead-in pages are protected, so I can't edit 'em. :P 68.164.9.206 (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Finalizing the changeover to the oversight requests email address

The email address to which requests for oversight should be submitted is oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. Editors with email enabled may use Special:EmailUser/Oversight.

Further to a previous announcement and to finalize the announced changeover to the above email address, the original oversight-l mailing list shall be set to subscribers only effective 1 September 2011, automatically prompting non-subscribers to email requests to the new address instead.

Individuals who submit requests via direct email should ensure that their address books are updated to the new mailing address.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 04:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Suppression by administrators

Please see WP:VPI#Suppression by administrators. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee community member changes

Pursuant to the motion concerning advanced permissions and inactivity, the appointment of Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs) to the Audit Subcommittee is terminated effective 3 September 2011 and his Checkuser and Oversight permissions shall be withdrawn. The committee has been unable to contact Bahamut0013, and this action is taken on the basis that he is not currently active on this project.

AGK (talk · contribs) is appointed in his place in accordance with the April 2011 Audit Subcommittee appointments motion. The Arbitration Committee thanks Bahamut0013 for his contributions to the Audit Subcommittee during his tenure, and thanks AGK for agreeing to accept full membership in the subcommittee for the remainder of Bahamut0013's term.

Supporting motion: Casliber; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; David Fuchs; Elen of the Roads; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Newyorkbrad; PhilKnight; Risker; SirFozzie; Xeno.

Not voting/inactive: Cool Hand Luke; Coren; Iridescent; Kirill Lokshin; Mailer diablo; Roger Davies.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 22:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Is it a pain to modify or hide an older post?

The example-in-point is where someone did a "forgot to log in" edit on an active thread where they have also participated logged in, and there are many subsequent posts by others. It is my impression that for an oversighter to have to fix an older post makes a big mess out of things (they have to hide all of everybody's subsequent posts- is this true?). (I know someone who was asked once by an oversighter to "report sooner" but they had reported in minutes, and by a 1/2 hour later when they got it fixed, there had been many subsequent posts by others which they indicated they also had to hide.) And, if the post is such that it would not tend to "out" the poster, but they wanted to be proper in not socking nor create a log-in which might get interpreted later as socking, should they report it to oversight, and, if so, should they request any change or hiding? North8000 (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If you aren't worried about a comment you made as an IP because of the public disclosure of the IP, you can just re-sign as yourself noting in the edit summary "signing post made while inadvertently logged out". As long as you weren't deliberately being deceptive with the IP, you should not have a problem regarding accusations of socking. –xeno^talk 13:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, when I was a newbie I did that once (re-signed a post) and a nasty stalker/battler of mine found it and implied that such was "socking" and plastered sock notices/templates on my account and a static IP page. And, in the case of a static IP, re-signing could be partially / fully outing one's self. But I think that your last sentence answers my "what to do". But I still think that it would be good info to know if it's a pain for an oversighter to hide/modify an older post where there have been many subsequent edits. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues with suppressing information that has been publicly available for an extended period. The first is that if there are a lot of edits to the same page subsequent to the information that is to be suppressed, then a large number of versions will need to be suppressed. This has a tendency to focus more rather than less interest on the issue, and also results in editors wondering why *their* edit had to be suppressed. The second issue is the length of time that the information has been on the page: the longer the information has been on a page, the more likely that it will also have been copied to a mirror or simply have been noticed within this project. Risker (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

Current demand for users with regional knowledge

Because of the increasing activity from the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people who not only meet our general requirements but also are familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 18 September 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 10 October 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

The first rule of suppression is

Do not talk about suppression actions on-wiki. The second rule of suppression is... you see where I'm going. But something came up recently. A user was blocked for vandalism/incompetence issues. In an apparent attempt to whitewash the embarrassingly foolish edits they made, they filed a request through OTRS to have all edits by both (oh yeah, socking was the third problem) of their accounts suppressed. Of course I denied that request because that is really not what suppression is for. Later that same day, they filed an unblock request which I happened to see and decide to review. In that request they stated that they did nothing wrong. Obviously, not only is that not the case but they know it is not the case or they would not have asked for suppression. Since the request was declined as inappropriate, is it ok to mention it when reviewing the block? (I didn't by the way,but I sure thought about it.) The crux of it is, when you work with suppression, you get used to the idea that you learn all these (usually very boring) things so that you can deal with the cases and then forget about them since you can't discuss any of it. But where does that guarantee of privacy attach? From the mere act of requesting, or only when there is a real privacy issue involved? I don't want to violate the sanctity of of the suppression system or give the impression that filing a request there might bounce back on you here, but I also have a problem with ignoring an obvious lie. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to talk about in the clear, especially if the denial was extremely clear cut. But how about using a particular, slightly odd turn of phrase (use uncommon synonyms) that would alert those in the know to the problem instead? You could mention, e.g. "account non-action to avoid scrutinization", and those in the know would know you were referring to oversight requests. The non-word 'scrutinization' would trigger the memories of thoes 'in the know'.--Elvey (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Diff Anomaly

I recently noticed an edit anomaly in the history of an article expect would never need oversighting. A minor change was made, and reverted. When viewed with the diff tools, the history shows the change, but the reversion (namely restoration of a single word) is not shown, and yet the next version shows that the change was reverted. I'm wondering if it is inadvertent evidence of suppression, RevisionDelete, or evidence of a technical bug that needs fixing. And I'm debating where to ask about it. Thoughts? I'd rather ask in public (here or on ANI), but I guess I could ask in private and raise it publicly if it goes unresolved.--Elvey (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Which page? –xeno^talk 19:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, slow response. [[

Hard disk drive]], IIRC, but I don't see the evidence now, and I don't seem to have made a proper log. Never mind, unless there's something in the privileged logs.--Elvey (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Suppression - who did it?

A large number of edits were suppressed recently for no apparent reason. Some of them seem especially weird since the person whose edit is being suppressed, say [1] or[2] is not currently blocked, in fact some of them were never blocked. Is there any way to know who suppressed which edits, so you can request some information from that person who was doing the suppressing? Also another question, does suppression work on the English wiki only, or can certain editors from here do a "cross-wiki" suppression? Hobartimus (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If a particular piece of information needs to be suppressed, but there were many intervening edits in between when the edit was made and when it was removed from the page, all of those intermediate edits also need to be suppressed. This should not be taken as a negative reflection upon the users whose intermediate edits were suppressed (these edtis may be completely unrelated to the matter that required suppression). –xeno^talk 19:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments & personnel changes

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to appoint five editors to the CheckUser team and three editors to the Oversight team pursuant to the CheckUser and Oversight appointment procedures and following the 2011 CUOS appointments process.

Subject to their providing identification satisfactory to the Wikimedia Foundation, the Arbitration Committee hereby resolves to:

(a) appoint the following editors as checkusers:

• AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• Elockid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Keegan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• WilliamH (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

(b) appoint the following editors as oversighters:

• Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• Fluffernutter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• WilliamH (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

† Previously identified member of the Audit Subcommittee who will retain the specified permission(s) upon the conclusion of their terms.

The committee thanks the other candidates (28bytes, HelloAnnyong, Kww, and Mentifisto); those who applied but were not put forward as candidates; and the community in bringing this appointment process to a successful conclusion.

The committee also recognizes the departures of Dominic and Nishkid64 from their dual roles on the CheckUser and Oversight teams; along with EVula, Howcheng, & Mr.Z-man from the Oversight team; and thanks these editors for their diligent service as functionaries and their extensive contributions elsewhere on the project.

At the request of arbitrator Iridescent, checkuser and oversight permissions will be removed from their account until such time as Iridescent is able to return to active participation.

Supporting motion: Casliber; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; Coren; David Fuchs; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Mailer diablo; PhilKnight; Newyorkbrad; Roger Davies; Risker; SirFozzie; Xeno

Not voting/inactive: Cool Hand Luke; Elen of the Roads; Iridescent

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 13:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

RFC at Meta

The request is that an extra sentence is added to Oversight policy to clarify the places the tool is capable of being used. At present global policy states the types of material it can be used on but with richer user interactions in the pipeline there have been concerns that it needs to be explicit where that content may occur for oversight to be valid. Hopefully not contentious.

Details and link

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Village Pump

At village pump I've made a proposal for how to improve editor reporting of revisions needing oversight with changes to MediaWiki software. Comments and suggestions are appreciated. causa sui (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2012)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 31 January 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012): Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 29 February 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

User:Fred Bauder

I'm having trouble with this oversighter's arrogant attitude & apparent disruption. After rudely locking his talkpage, he directed to this place to raise my complaint. Now, he went & reverted my complaint. I just wante to know, WHY did he oversight certain edits, that's all. He dosen't have to be a dick about it. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Inquiries about edits which have been oversighted, hidden, cannot be discussed on wiki without defeating the oversight. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well. It would've helped, if you'd explain that at the first. I've never dealt with an oversighter before 'or' oversighting for that matter. Figure you were some fella tampering with posts, that's all. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012)

Effective 1 March 2012, Avraham (talk · contribs), Ponyo (talk · contribs), and Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 March 2012 to 28 February 2013. MBisanz (talk · contribs) is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term. The Arbitration Committee thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to Keegan (talk · contribs) who is expected to remain in office until 31 March 2012.

Support motion

AGK, Casliber, Courcelles, Elen of the Roads, Hersfold, Jclemens, Kirill Lokshin, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Xeno.

Not voting

David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SilkTork, SirFozzie.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 17:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

1 Year Good Behaviour Clean Slate

I'd like to propose that users be allowed to have their records expunged after a certain time limit (something significantly long like a year) so that they may be able to assist with the project more in depth over time. I started editing back when wiki began, and I am definitely not the first person to cop a ban for something that wasn't super bad who's going to have to wear that forever. A brief google search shows that arbitrary bans for silly reasons, and lack of GAB being the ONLY assessment criteria used (as I have personally experienced where admins expected far more than accepting, understanding, reforming, and rehabilitating as the main criterion) which caused me to become increasingly irate everytime my unban requests were declined because I didn't seem penitent enough, and I made quite an ass of myself.

In Australia (I cannot speak for other nations on this one) there is legislation in place to ensure that people are allowed a fair go in life. Especially with online matters, where kids now are going to be facing hell as adults or even adults now who, rightly so, have changed their views or opinions but were previously dicks. These issues are new to us as we are still walking blindly into a brave new world when it comes to technology, and it would be entirely unjust to allow people to be unable to attain a job or marry their girlfriend or live in a certain area purely because of something they said in the past while angry, or not thinking rationally. We all make dicks of ourselves sometime, and it's not fair that we should have to live with that forever.

No where in the world will you find anything but law enforcement (tracking serious offenses only) keeping an immortal permanent record on you, however Wikipedia is one of the few places you will encounter this. This isn't equitable as people need not have to explain their past, especially something so long ago, every time it is brought into question; and as all of you can agree many irate users will scrutinise you and throw stuff back at you as they see fit (I do a lot of third opinion and dispute resolution stuff and have had and can see having that happen as people get heated when they feel you're part of some grand conspiracy against them).

I've brought this issue up at an anti wikipedia corruption forum where it had significant support, especially amongst users who have been or still are arbitrarily life banned for various (yet surprisingly not serious) reasons, but I am unsure how to go about proposing this formally. This Oversight method seems like the best means, but how would I go about suggesting it?

At present there are literally in excess of 2,000 users on the anti-corruption site I was lurking after my ban encounter, many of which rubbed an admin up the wrong way, and many were banned (I've experienced this myself) in a way that they cannot appeal the ban as the ban template suggests, most are too naive to dig around and find the obscure one line entry giving you an email (if you know where to look) to contact, and after my ban's appeals (which required sock puppetry and ban evasion to appeal, of which I was rebanned for at one point, which is just asinine and naturally compounded the problem) I literally gave up and couldn't find the email and by no means am I less than resourceful with such matters given my profession so if I failed, many others do too.

Of these users, should they return to Wikipedia (many are actually very educated people too, including a dozen or so professors, authors, researchers, and one nobel prize winner (all verifiable)) they will never be able to take an active role due to their past, they will never be able to assist in administration or formalised roles with the topics and fields that they have spent half a century or more serving in the real world, or in some cases in fields that they were a keystone in the development of and existence of.

My experience was an eye opener, and whilst I had it coming and really didn't help myself by getting shittier and shitter the more irrational the ban decline was (as I said above, penitent reactions aren't in GAB, or they'd literally decline because they didn't like your tone) and I know that if it happened to me, it happens to others, the website I went to left my mind blown, and it truly saddens me that we are arbitrarily ostracising such important people rather than rehabilitating, educating, or explaining things to them and instead using them as the amazing and priceless resource they are and then letting them resume contribution without a black mark against their name.

Could someone please suggest how I could go about mobilising such a project? I have backed up this proposal on my talk page at User:BaSH_PR0MPT/Proposal_for_Good_Behaviour_Record_Expunge_for_Rehabilitation_and_Reconcilitation and I would welcome any advice publicly here, or privately there if any philanthropic soul who truly believes in the betterment of the project by being rehabilitative rather punitive or revengeful and appreciate you lasting this long reading this (quite rambling) request. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• 5 years is a better idea.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Five years is insane. Given how many thousands of editors and even entire IP blocks are banned monthly, we'll run out of editors and most will have a black mark against their name.

In almost all nations legal systems once a penalty or sentence is exhausted it is expunged, and to discriminate against them on the grounds that they have undergone a penalty or sentence is a criminal offence. It stands to reason that what is meant to be an enlightened community with an academic focus should at least display the same kind of humanitarianism that a cold clinical legal system presents? BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, we ban and block for a reason. Usually, it's bad enough that even a full year is not enough. Take a review of WP:ANI and you'll see why I'm suggesting five years.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I do understand that you're trying to imply there are some massive dickbutts out there, but all in all I don't think most people are inherently bad, and I know for a fact that it doesn't take much to get a user indef banned and many admins don't unban based purely on GAB. So what I'm really getting at here is that I'm pushing for a solution to reintegrate those users once they finally do get some form of just result so they don't live with an immortal black card against their name that serves no other purpose but to further disenfranchise and allow the victimization of the user in question just as you would anywhere else in the world. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• For many, the behavior is long-term such that even a full year isn't enough. I was once blocked for ridiculous edits to Yelena Dembo, but I didn't ask for that entry in my block log to be oversighted.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. There is a particular need for Oversight candidates in this round of appointments.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

Current demand for users with regional knowledge

Because of the increasing activity from the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people who not only meet our general requirements but also are familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 15 June 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

email not working

Resolved

I tried to send an email using Outlook Express 6 to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org and it failed as 'not found'. Could someone test the email or correct the address I pasted above if it is wrong? I did manage to send it through user email though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You're missing an @ sign between wp and wikipedia.org. The Helpful One 19:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ooops. I just noticed that. I copy/pasted it and it didn't take the @ sign it seems. oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org is the same copy/paste from the top of Wikipedia:Requests for oversight and it failed again. I don't know if it would be worth adding one that does copy/paste. I am using IE8 with WinXP. Any change is probably not needed but good to know why it failed. Thanks.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The same thing just happened at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:OTRS#The_.40_symbol_in_the_email_address It seems to be an ASCII issue. I can't fix the locked page here though. Someone else may wish to.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

The issue above has been brought up at commons pump as well as other WMF projects. The @ is an image to stop spam bots from seeing it as an email address. File:At_sign.svg is the image. It seems we may have lost many, many images due to OTRS where the emails failed. Could we add a note to the protected section of requests? 'If you copy/paste this email the @ will not show up due to spam protection. Add the @ manually after paste' Some have brought up the fact that the email addresses don't need spam protection. Another plan was to do some java thingy that opens local email programs when the address is clicked. They mentioned that spam bots don't do java thingies. This may need addressing at other pages on en:wp such as OTRS as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. The page Wikipedia:Oversight is move protected, but not edit-protected. You can tell this because it has an "Edit" tab - a protected page would have a "View source" tab. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for oversight is the page that needs the edit. The talk page is a fully protected re-direct so I couldn't put the request there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Was a consensus on this reached yet? Can you supply links to the relevant discussion(s)? Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a parameter to the {{edit protected}} at the top of this section, so that it points to the actual page which is to be amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it would need consensus. It may even need an Office Action by WMF. Do any oversighters know how spam is dealt with in the email? I know the issue now but others in the future may not. As I said I posted it at meta so all the projects can be aware of it. I am just wondering now if we can add a warning type statement for now until any future solution has another fix.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• commons:Commons:Village_pump#OTRS_email_address:_spam_the_.22.40.22_sign.2C_and_the_need_for_a_reliable_email_address is the biggest of many discussions in other projects. Could someone shrink that link? I am not sure how.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Spam that lands in the oversight OTRS queue is dealt with by clicking a "one click spam" button that moves it to the trash pile. We do get spammed pretty regularly but it is not an overwhelming problem. On another note I have changed the redirect so that Wikipedia talk:Requests for oversight now redirects here. Seemed a bit silly to have the talk page link point back to the request page, and it makes sense to centralize on-wiki OS discussions here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I closed the requset. I didn't want to leave it on the request board. I am no longer concerned with the issue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Self-outing material?

Several years ago, when I was not concerned with job-hunting, social-networking sites, etc., I added my e-mail to an edit on Wikipedia. I know Oversight is usually just for inappropriate outing by other users, but is it possible to expunge information I previously posted willingly?

I am concerned, because relatively recently I received what may be conceived as a personal threat on a discussion page, and my e-mail (which is still locatable) is tied to my personal accounts on several external social networking sites.

elvenscout742 (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

For job hunting I would actually recommend using a more reputable e-mail address if possible. :)
I've deleted your old user page revisions for now, meaning it will not be publicly viewable anymore. I hope an editor from the oversight group will soon look into it and decide whether it qualifies for suppression.
In general, requesting oversight is best done per the instructions laid out at WP:RFO, to avoid calling attention to problematic information.
Amalthea 09:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Amalthea! :D I actually did not mean to make a request directly here, just to ask if it was possible. I wasn't sure, based on the content of the page, whether this function was solely for when users maliciously out other users.
About the job-hunting thing, I actually have a job now - one with a lot of down-time, hence my recent activity on Wikipedia. :P elvenscout742 (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom, oversight, and confidential information

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbcom, confidentiality, and oversight

This is a notice concerning an RfC concerning the access and handling of confidential information by arbcom members and oversighters. And also changes policy concerning the granting and retaining of the Oversight user-right. - jc37 11:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

crystal ball

On Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight, how the heck is a user supposed to know if it will not draw undue attention before they revert something? NE Ent 20:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Use your best judgement. If you make a mistake, the revert can always be suppressed too, so it's not really a big deal either way. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Declaration of possible conflict of interest

I have just accepted a contractual position with the Wikimedia Foundation, and posted a full disclosure with details and an invitation for community comments here. — Coren ^(talk) 21:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed prohibition on undoing an oversight block

Oversighters, could I ask you to take a look at my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Proposed prohibition on undoing an oversight block? Prioryman

Unprofessional

I have personally requested oversighting on two different occassions and on both occassions my requests were ignored. Till 09:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Gone wrong?

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Turning_Wikipedia_into_Spamapedia
Has something gone wrong with oversight? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)