Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Oversight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:OS)

Can we consider a formal rename of oversight to suppression (or something else)? (just a brainstorm)

[edit]

The oversight extension has been deprecated for more than a decade, and very few people (particularly newer contributors) actually understand why the tool was named as such. A rename would be better for newer users.

A rename would entail moving this page from Project:Oversight to Project:Suppression, renaming the appropriate group roles, updating references of "oversight" to "suppressor" or "suppression team" across the project where needed, etc. It might also involve updating email addresses and mailing lists (but not discontinuing previous ones). "Oversight" is not even defined as we use it right now; oversight means "supervision or management" and is not synonymous with "suppression".

Suppression might have a negative connotation, but it is also important to note that suppression is only done for material that for one reason or another creates legal liability if accessible even by administrators. And I don't think there are many other terms that accurately describe what this is doing. We could differentiate between these different levels of deletion with stuff like level I deletion and level II deletion, but then the group name would be "level II deleter" and that does not ring nicely, and that might still not have an entirely positive connotation.

Maybe one can find a better term to reflect this role that is not negative or something? I can be certain that this role only exists for legal reasons, in the same manner "checkuser" exists. So finding a term that reflects this fact would be more helpful. Awesome Aasim 00:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that this has been brought up several times before:
stwalkerster (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? We can maybe combine the "checkuser" and "oversight" privileges into one "functionary" role, since both roles are tied with the handling of private information, if someone is trusted with one they are trusted with the other. A functionary role would have access to the IP addresses accessed by accounts, ability to redact and technically suppress information, and oversight over each other's use of these tools. I have never seen a case where one with both roles lost just one or the other. (example: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block where a former functionary lost both roles because of lapsed judgement with the "checkuser" tool). Awesome Aasim 00:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a number of OSers who are not CU, and a ton of CU who are not OSers. Combining these roles would give access to people who have, for one reason or another, indicated they neither want nor need the other role. Primefac (talk) 07:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two roles require different skill sets and not everybody has both. I am an OSer without CU, I don't have the technical skills to make use of the CU tool and I have little to no interest in learning them. So either people like me would have access to CU without meeting the usage requirements (pointless, arguably potentially harmful), I'd lose access to the OS tool because I didn't use CU often enough (not the greatest loss to the team, but still a loss) or I'd be forced to make bad use of the CU tool (with great potential for harm). Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suppression is the technical term and Oversight the common name for the same process. The words can continue to coexist, in the same way we call someone with the sysop privilege an admin. However, you make a good point that their duty is to perform limited and welcome suppression rather than general management. It's unfortunate that for reasons verging on marketing and political correctness we need (rather ironically) to suppress the S word. Perhaps we can find a better term which describes the role more accurately without offending anyone. Certes (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be the same reason why we moved from "abuse filter" to "edit filter" even though many contributors including me still use AF. It is called that because its primary purpose is to catch potential vandalism, LTA, and etc. but not all edits the filter flags are "harmful".
The term that might be better is just "level II revision deletion" or something similar because revision deletion already removes inappropriate material from public view, and for most cases that is enough. If we need to go a step further (level I to level II) then that is what "suppress" would be. Awesome Aasim 16:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
suppression is only done for material that for one reason or another creates legal liability if accessible even by administrators this is not correct. The policy section of this page lists the situations where we suppress material, and privacy reasons are far more common than legal ones (both in terms of criteria and in terms of how often they are applied). Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, there are legal implications with having personal information visible to everyone. Most don't realize that personal information here is visible to everyone forever even if later removed. Which was the purpose of the oversight and later suppression tools. Other wikis (particularly commercial wikis) have other obligations like GDPR and when a user "vanishes" (like I have seen on Fandom), the username must be suppressed in all relevant logs for compliance, and any pages where personal information is present must be removed. It's called the right to be forgotten for a reason. Awesome Aasim 16:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, the action is formally called "hiding", not suppression, in our logs. I'd rather be called a hider than a suppressor. Both of them suck. In some languages, the local equivalent of "suppressor" doesn't have the Orwellian impact as it does in English, but I know for a fact (having met some colleagues from other languages) that they're none too fond of the implications of the name. The reality is that we aren't suppressing anything in any classic meaning of the term; we're preventing access to certain elements of information. We can't suppress the information in the sense that it is impossible for anyone to know the information was ever there. (Incidentally that's what the old oversight tool did, but very clearly the current suppression tools do *not* do.) So if someone has the strong urge to get into the semantics of the whole thing, they should start by insisting on the correct name of the activity, and then working their way down. I could almost accept a name like "access restrictor". Risker (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe what might be better is "content administrator" and "account administrator" for OS/CU. Content administrator suggests that the user administers content decisions. In which case then we could rename "administrator" to "moderator" as that is essentially what the administrator tools allow. It would also distinguish between "system administrator" and "database administrator" which entail different roles and responsibilities. Awesome Aasim 21:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators are far more "content administrators" than they are "system administrators" or "sysops"; oversighters make far fewer and much less wide-ranging decisions about content than regular admins do. The only "account administration" that checkusers do is blocking and unblocking - i.e. what administrators do. Thryduulf (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for the role namings and policy namings:

It may get a bit redundant if one has both but it resolves this historic happenstance and inaccurate description by using the same name to refer to both checkusers and oversighters. Awesome Aasim 23:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to understand what the benefit of that change would be? Also note that there are functionaries without either tool. Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are functionaries without either tool aren't functionaries essentially users entrusted by both the community (or ArbCom) and the WMF to handle personal data? There could be a right called "arbcom" that lists Arbitration Commitee members, which would be a cosmetic-ish role. Awesome Aasim 19:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All functionaries are entrusted to handle personal data, but not all are or were arbitrators. Wikipedia:Functionaries#Members notes that there are several Functionaries who are former oversighters and/or checkusers but not former arbitrators, TonyBallioni for example. They remain subscribed to list so they can offer their perspectives and advice when that would be beneficial, even though they don't handle personal data on a day-to-day basis. However this isn't really relevant to my question, which is why would "Functionaries (checkuser access)" and "Functionaries (suppress tool access)" be improvements over the status quo? Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it distinguishes the technical role that gives the tool from the actual tools itself. It is the same reason we call administrators "administrators" rather than administrators, say, "deletors", even though they technically can delete. The same thing could be done for "rollback" and other roles. Any (insert name of tool)-er is one who (insert names of tool)-s, but it does not mean that every person with access to (insert name of tool) is a (insert name of tool)-er. Saying a person has "access" is much less technical, in the same manner that one has access to a vacuum or access to a pressure washer. Awesome Aasim 17:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have "oversighter" and "checkuser"? What benefits does changing these bring? Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser is unambiguously descriptive: one who checks user details such as IP address that shouldn't be public. Oversight has several meanings, only the last of which is relevant. It's a term of art that few non-Wikipedians would guess correctly. Certes (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why is that a problem? And why is "Functionaries (suppress tool access)" better, given that there are several meanings of "suppress", none of which are a great match for what "suppression" means on Wikipedia (sense 4 is the closest).
Consider also more prominent roles like "bureaucrat", "steward", and "extended-confirmed" whose names are wholly terms of art that few non-Wikipedians would guess correctly. Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be instructions in the page to contact the Wayback Machine to ask them to remove oversighted content?

[edit]

Oftentimes, oversighted content gets picked up by the Wayback Machine before it is removed. They will remove PII on request. Some Wikipedia users, especially new users, are unaware about the Wayback Machine. Could there be a reminder added to the page to check if the content was archived in the Wayback Machine, and contact them to remove it? Félix An (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not our site, so not by name. But maybe something generic in the notes like:
  • The oversight process described above is specific for the English Wikipedia, for assistance on another Wikimedia project, please contact their oversight team directly. For assistance with content hosted on external mirrors and forks or archvies you would need to contact the external site administrators.
? — xaosflux Talk 10:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 13 September 2024

[edit]

Please move the documentation to a standard subpage so that it can be edited. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Template:Oversight email/doc. — xaosflux Talk 12:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#Revdel and the filter. QwertyForest (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QwertyForest, I assume this is the #Revdel and the filter section? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Only just realised that I forgot to specify. I'll edit the top message to make it more clear. QwertyForest (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit

[edit]

Please re-apply the changes in [1] (also {{self trout}} for not realizing that the page was fully-protected). Sohom (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Primefac (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Oversight&oldid=1248277830"