Talk:Oversight policy

Older discussion

So this differs from a regular deletion in that the versions won't even be seen by admins. Is this correct? Thanks. --Lord Voldemort 16:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In fact no one not even someone with oversight can see the deleted edit. Only a developer can restore it or even see it. Prodego ^Talk 23:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That last bit has of course been changed, the page is correct now. - Taxman 04:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How possible would it be to be able remove deleted revisions without first restoring them? It's both inefficient and disconcerting to restore personal information before hiding it, and the handful of us with oversight permission are not likely to get there before another admin at least deletes the edit. There could be a "hide revisions" box right next to "reset" in Special:Undelete. Dmcdevit 08:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well this is only supposed to be temporary. Prodego ^Talk 14:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted versions?

So, now that this is here, what about the ability to view deleted revisions? As I recall, it was removed because the fears that people would see personal info in the edit summary, which this seems to deal with... 68.39.174.238 04:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Users with oversight rights

I strongly urge that this power be limited only to the users who already have it, and that the final version of the code include an undelete function. This would be a very, very mischevious tool if it fell into the wrong hands, for instance if an admin's laptop were stolen or password were hacked.68.33.63.117 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The data is not removed completely, it's just rammed well out of sight, somewhere core MediaWiki doesn't have an awareness of, and so will never access. If the tool was abused, a database administrator could restore the revisions without too much additional work. In such a case, the user account would lose permissions as an obvious precaution, and might end up being blocked on various wikis if it were compromised.

The permission is strongly limited. At present, only a local wiki's Arbitration Committee can order that it be given to a non-developer/system admin/database admin, and the latter groups don't want the additional work anyway. ;) 86.134.116.228 15:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Extended to clear vandalism and testing

This or similar mechanism would be useful if applied to clear vandalism (and subsequent revert) and/or testing by novices, immediatelly changed back by themselves. It is now practically impossible to use history of many "popular" articles.

A mechanism labeling those edits as "absolutely worthless" could be safeguarded against misuse. Say, several people would need to agree unanimously, the votes would be assigned randomly, those who would try to misuse it would not be allowed to use it futher and all their past votes would be nullifyed, etc.

The option to see all edits, including those hidden would be available. Pavel Vozenilek 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

other wikipedias?

Is that option limited only for en: Wikipedia? Is that an intention? In cs: we'v got an accident when some (previously blocked) user strongly claimed removal of his nonpublic personal information even from history of the page... Another user not very soberly included them previously . We had no option to solve it. With regards --Reo On|+|+ 11:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A local admin can delete specific revisions by deleting the page and then restoring every other revision but the problem ones. There are various javascripts available that can help with that. That makes the revision only available to admins and should be good enough in most cases. - Taxman 17:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

see also Talk:Requests for permissions#Oversight in other Wikis? -- MichaelFrey 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How to install oversite rights on wiki's

How do I install the oversite rights on my wiki? Can they be installed under mediawiki version 1.6.8? I notice that the download information for hidden.sql states: "Requires DiffViewHeader hook in 1.7 (r14358)" does this mean it will not work under 1.6.8? (I cannot install 1.7 because of the wrong php version).

When I edited the Main Page of my newly set up wiki I found that at the bottom of the page it says: "This page was last modified 14:58, 17 August 2006 by [username]. Based on work by Anonymous user(s) of [wikiname]" - not very elegant! Under history, the "Anonymous user" is transformed into "MediaWiki default". Is there a simple way of deleting this reference to the "Anonymous user(s)" (other than hiding the names of editors, which I have deliberately set to show)?

It would be better if default pages had a creation user for default pages as "MediaWiki default" rather than "Anonymous user(s)". Or alternatively, "MediaWiki default" should not be classified as anonymous.

You can't install the HideRevision extension under MediaWiki 1.6.x. 86.134.49.147 19:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: replacing hidden revision with marker

I removed the following commentary from the policy page for discussion here. - Taxman 17:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is possible that the system will be changed to replace the removed revisions with an explicitly visible marker.

Should be, including display of the comment. As well as the issue above, accountability requires it. Something obvious in the revision list and perhaps a similar call-out to that for deleted revisions as well. Jamesday 02:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think one solution is to implement this patch [1] developed by User:Tietew. With that, we can hide the main text of a page without hiding the comment, user name, and timestamp of the revision in the edit history/ revision history page. People can understand, then, that there are some revisions that is not viewable. Wrong attribution could be prevented with this to a certain degree. Tomos 03:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The timestamp? I don't remember it being able to do that, though I suppose it is quite possible. Still, that could leave a messy history. Perhaps a "show deleted revisions" toggle could appear on such history pages.Voice-of-All 22:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Solution to misleading revisions

How hard would it be to specify the offending text, and then have it removed from all revisions? This would avoid misattributions and misleading revisions. Further if the offending text removal process renders any given revision to be of null effect(the article shows no changes when diffed to the previous revision) then that revision can be removed entirely as well.--DataSurfer 18:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that it remained in all versions exactly the same, that would work, but editing old revisions is a bit strong. Doing it by hand would be the only sure-fire way, but that seems to push things too far.Voice-of-All 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oversight votes

Is oversight only granted where an Arbitration Commitee has approved it, or is it available to anyone who gets the votes? Is there a minimum no. of votes required? Archer7 15:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My sense is that access to oversight will be granted in the way CheckUser is (CheckUser_policy#Access). Not all projects have Arbitration Committees, but the ones that do will aprove oversight users that way, and the ones that don't will use a community vote. Dmcdevit 18:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not combine Oversight and Checkuser rights? see talk:checkuser for more discussion. -- sj | help translate |+

Hiding images

The following discussion is closed: possible with RevisionDelete.

---

Is it possible for oversights to hide old versions of uploaded images? MaxSem 19:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice Question.

The Picture Description page clear yes.

The picture self:

No, it hasn't a revision ID for Special:HideRevision and I dont see a delete button when I click on the deletet picture.

It looks like that you can only normall delete files.

-- MichaelFrey 12:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Only edit histories, not file histories, may be oversighted currently. There is an open feature request for file oversight at bugzilla:8196, but a developer responded "This may have to wait until live image storage is converted to FileStore format like the archives. Otherwise the code would end up useless soon anyway." I don't know when that will be. Dmcdevit 23:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The new deletion system will be able to further hide deleted images. It can also hide usernames from the user list, blocklist, and block log, as well as individial revision and archived revision content/usernames/edit summaries.Voice-of-All 02:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is now possible with RevisionDelete, the result of the bitfields for rev deleted work linked by Voice of All. —Pathoschild 18:54:16, 05 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding a new rule

Can we add "Removal of information that might harm users"? I mean, getting you into jail or losing a job...--The Joke النكتة‎ 13:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerns from English Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed: not implemented.

---

Any thoughts on the arguments here? The change to the local policy looked likely to stick around, until someone remembered this is a centralized policy: w:Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Added_IP_addresses_to_list. -- 146.115.58.152 21:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This was never discussed or implemented, but revision deletion has since been invented and suffices for such cases. —Pathoschild 17:45:44, 05 November 2009 (UTC)

Title

The following discussion is closed: moved

---

Would Oversight not be better? After all, that's what this page is concerned with. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. Doesn't a redirect already exist? ++Lar: t/c 23:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does, but that's not relevant to whether the current title is correct. ----Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The page has since been moved. —Pathoschild 17:40:05, 05 November 2009 (UTC)

email addy on "All wikimedia projects"

The following discussion is closed: settled on stewards-llistswikimediaorg.

---

The email on Hiding_revisions#All_Wikimedia_projects does not work, as far as I can tell... I'm seeking further clarification and I suggest it be removed for now. stewards-l is a private list and would not be suitable. I am trying to see if a new list for this (to publicly contact stewards, or to publicly contact oversighters in general) might be a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 23:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it does not exist? There's an OTRS queue for stewards... wouldn't it feed to that? Cbrown1023 talk 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the queue exists and works. It's very low-traffic, though. No emails since I joined, back in late December/early January. --FiLiP ¤ 23:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be a private list? You don't have to be a list member to write to a list, but do need to be to read anything; and that's exactly what would be needed for oversight reqs.--Nilfanion 23:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dungodung, do me a favour, go in OTRS and see if the test mails I sent are on there. That would explain where they went I guess :).. meanwhile I will try to get added to the queue myself. Nevertheless I think some mailing lists might be good. the "oversight-l" list appears currently to be only for en:wp use... it maybe should be repurposed and more (wiki specific) lists set up. Or maybe not. maybe that mail is sufficient. (actually never mind about sending them, Shanel sent them on to me so yes, it works :) ) Nilf, that's how the OTRS queues are, you need access to the queue to read them but anyone can send stuff to them... What threw me was that I was not a member of the stewards queue. Working on getting that fixed. I undid my undo of your change on commons... ++Lar: t/c 23:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to the "stewards-l is a private list and would not be suitable", rather than the OTRS side of things: I'd imagine that as a private stewards list it is exactly what would be wanted. The emphasis on the "publicly" seemed like suggesting a mailing list readable by anyone... No prob on the edit warring :P--Nilfanion 00:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the oversight maillist is suitable for any edits requiring oversight. While mostly used by enwp oversighters, if there is a request that they can't fulfill directly (such as log item removal or removal on a wiki with no local oversights), they will forward it to someone who can. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I was told when I enquired about joining it a bit ago. I like the idea of the most general name being for the most general use... but only en:wp oversighters are on there. If oversight (unfortunately) expands much beyond where it is specific now, it may become complex for someone from en:wp to route a request to the right specific oversighter. Hence my interest in exploring mechanisms now... ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

privacy-l? Make it a more complicated if you'd like (steward-oversight-l perhaps) and link it to the oversight user here, perhaps? Kylu 05:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy is unclear

The following discussion is closed: fixed.

---

During the first Oversight elections of de-wp, there has been some confusion as to whether Oversights can still view hidden revisions. Even though the official policy on meta states "Hidden revisions remain permanently inaccessible through the wiki.", users with oversight rights apparently have read access to hidden revision through the wiki (the policy of en-wp states that clearly: "Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made."). For that reason, I suggest to rephrase that part of the policy to the english version or something along the lines of "Hidden revisions remain permanently inaccessible through the wiki for all users except the Oversights.". --Tinz 15:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That has seen been updated. —Pathoschild 17:38:54, 05 November 2009 (UTC)

Update for username hiding

The following discussion is closed: implemented.

---

The new suppression features include the ability to hide usernames when blocking, which has already been extensively used to hide attack names like "Joe Smith rapes and murders babies". Unlike revision oversighting, hiding names with no associated edits causes no disruption of edit histories or transparency. However, this is not technically permitted by the oversight policy, which arguably includes blockhiding.

I see no drawback to the disappearance of one-off attacks like "Billy Joe sucks Grawp's greasy microcock in his parents' basement", and various benefits like reduced motivation to create them in the first place and the removal of an attack vector that can have no positive effect on the target's enjoyment of the wiki environment. Furthermore, hiding usernames can be easily reviewed and reverted by anyone with the relevant rights.

If there are no objections, I will talk to the appropriate Foundation people about adding something to this effect:

• Hiding of blatant attack names on automated lists and logs, where this does not disrupt edit histories.

—Pathoschild 02:27:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with this idea. No problems, and attack names really don't need to be in the logs when they're talking about a Wiki*edian. GrooveDog 02:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Makes perfect sense to me. We've had this issue for the longest time on enwiki. Also, your second example made me spit Red Bull over my laptop! - Alison ^❤ 02:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Full support - for both hiding with CentralAuth and hiding with hideuser blocks. There's no need to have attack accounts in user lists etc, and every reason not to.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Per Pathoschild's and Mike.lifeguard's rationale. There is no point to have insulting-attacking-denigrating, etc usernames on that lists. Thanks —Dferg 22:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Conceptually I have no issue with the suggestion, and see that it adds value, I think that the principle needs to be a little clearer. Attack names? Attack Jones, Stab stab stab, ... I would be interested in how it would be managed, locally vs. centrally, to whom would the power would be given, and the criteria that could be used to where the the black lines is to defining an attack username, or start to have double entendre, etc. Means for determining edit history? If someone just had reverted edits, or undone edits, what then? BTW whose parents' the statement is ambiguous ;-) billinghurst 03:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  to follow an IRC conversation the component needed is probably something like ... 'attack' can be interpreted fairly broadly, to mean a username clearly intended to denigrate, threaten, libel, or insult someone (be they Wikimedians or real identities) —billinghurst 04:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  Sounds good to me. —Pathoschild 04:14:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've no problem with this. Good idea. Pmlineditor ∞ 10:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Really all you need to say is the username breaks the already existing 3 elligable reasons for oversight. -Djsasso 12:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support this enhancement/clarification. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Complete Support. I support hiding the vile attack usernames, and I support clarifying the policy so that everyone understands that it is permitted. FloNight 14:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can we have some clarity as to what "where this does not disrupt edit histories" entails?? Naturally accounts with no contributions would be elegible, but what would happen (both technically and socially) when an account has made edits? How would the nature of the edits (revertible vandalism or constructive editing) affect this clause? Happy‑melon 15:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  Mailer Diablo approves this message! I presume this means for usernames with no contributions. Happy-melon raises a good point about usernames with contributions, which we anticipate a possible loophole vandals might take advantage of (by just making one edit). - 15:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  Accounts with edits will only disrupt edit histories if they have contributed part of the article that was kept in later revisions. Hiding the name will disrupt edit histories, because portions of the content will be from unknown accounts (we won't even know if they're from the same account). In those cases, we'd need to go the old route of renaming the account to something that doesn't contain the attack. This is a very rare situation, requiring that nobody notice the registration and that other users then make legitimate edits to the same articles the abusive user edited before they're reverted. —Pathoschild 21:39:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  In virtually every instance, the edits coming from these accounts are stuff that everyone would glad to see gone, right? So I don't see an issue. The edits most likely will already be removed one way or another when the username is hidden, right? So socially, I think people will be happy that the stuff is gone. And if the vandal decides to play games with us and adds sensible stuff with an vandal attack account name, then that is still an attack and needs to be dealt with. If there are questions about this from the Community, then we can explain the situation. Most people are understanding and appreciative when someone explains to them what is going on with these nasty vandals. FloNight 15:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  I must be circumspect, but suffice to say that there are people who are already "playing games" with Oversight, and will continue to do. The implications of this clause (and all the other clauses in the proposal) need to be fully expanded to ensure that everyone is on the same wavelength and that there are no grey areas that can (and will) be exploited. What will happen in the scenario where a user registers an attack username and makes constructive edits with it? Happy‑melon 17:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  The edits could be reverted, or the account could be renamed so neither reversion nor hiding are necessary. (See also my above response, if you missed it.) —Pathoschild 18:09:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support the upgrade. Some Chinese wikis have usernames insulting someone. They have yet to be hidden from the public view.--Jusjih 20:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Support – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• support, I'm surprised it's not already the case. DarkoNeko 22:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Full support names like these are pure harassment and vandalism and I can't think of a single legit reason to keep them showing even if they DID do a vandlistic edit or two before being locked. 22:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Some weeks ago I've created a proposal on strategy.wikimedia.org to let the oversight policy be rewritten by WMF esp. concerning hiding user names. If Pathoschild can make conversation with the Foundation, it could be much easier to fulfil our wishes than with the proposal. You might mention the other issues, too. Kind regads, —DerHexer (Talk) 01:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, either way I'm in favor of Pathoschild's suggestion. --Erwin 08:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Surely a good idea. Barras 17:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as written because it is not broad enough. The Stewards, and some enwiki oversighters, are currently hiding user names that are not only attacks on users, but also merely mild harassment, or even generic user names that attack no specific person. Some hypothetical user names that are being hidden are,

  • Billy Joe sucks Grawp's greasy microcock in his parents' basement
  • Billy Joe did WTC
  • Billy Joe abuses his admin status
  • Wikipedia admins suck

  The current use of HideUser is much broader than the proposed statement. (Also, if a vandal account has contributions, hiding the user name in logs also hides the user name on the history pages where it had contributions, but the contributions themselves remain in the history unless they are separately suppressed, so a conditional statement about contribution histories is not needed.) To reflect reality, the statement should read,

  • Hiding of vandal user names on automated lists and logs, whether due to vulgarity, harassment of project editors or attacks on the project in general

  Thatcher 17:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  The whole point of this (as I see it, at least) is to draw a clear line. The examples you mention would fall on the wrong side of it, and would thus be excluded, which would be a good thing. Equally, the cases you and I agree should be covered would be, which is also a good thing. I'm not sure why your comments begin with "oppose" because everything after that actually supports drawing this line.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  Certainly, we both agree that aggressively vulgar and hostile user names should be suppressed, and it is worthwhile to expand the policy to cover that. The question is, will the stewards stop hiding user names that are only mildly annoying and harassing like "Wikipedia admins suck" and "Thatcher is a moron" and "User Thatcher is really fat" (you suppressed this one on Aug 20) if the policy is changed? If the stewards are going to continue to hide user names that are mildly annoying or harassing, then the written policy should not say "blatant attack names" which is more narrow than current practice. Or maybe the real problem is what is the definition of a "blatant attack." Thatcher 19:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  If I did, then it was a mistake & should be fixed. When working at a rate of something like 1 attack username per 20s (which is probably average for such attacks), even I make mistakes (part of the reason we need more stewards and/or Global sysops). The question of whether stewards will "continue" should be asked in that light: Having a clear line would stop things from being hidden which shouldn't be with the obvious exception that people are people and thus make mistakes, as I have done in the case you mention. Such mistakes can and should be corrected wherever possible (thankfully these things are reversible, unlike old-school oversight).  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  Hello Thatcher. Billinghurst raised a similar point, and after discussion we decided that an expanded version like the following would draw a clearer line. What do you think of this more specific version, which does define 'attack'?

  • Hiding of blatant attack names on automated lists and logs, where this does not disrupt edit histories. Blatant attack can be interpreted as obviously intended to denigrate, threaten, libel, insult, or harass someone.

  The disruption of edit histories does need mention; see the above discussion about it. —Pathoschild 21:40:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  I suppose then my issue is with the word blatant. "User:Thatcher is a moron" is a direct attack on me, but is barely a raspberry, much less a pointed stick, and does not really deserve to be smashed with a 16-ton weight. If that is the sort of attack you mean to be suppressible, it might be better to dispense with qualifying adjective that can be interpreted differently and just say, Vandal user names, including those that attack or harass other editors, may be hidden on request. Is there such a thing as a mild or petty attack user name that would not be suppressed? Looking over the discussion I find I am in agreement with Happy melon that there needs to be more exploration of the term "blatant." It is not clear to me whether this proposed wording change is meant to expand the policy to allow all the suppressions that have been done recently, or to expand the policy partially but also to partially restrict current behavior. Thatcher 04:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  The update is not meant to justify or limit past usage, but to define future usage. The term blatant distinguishes names that are obviously harassment from those that merely fit a pattern or belong to a vandal known to harass users. It does not indicate severity.

  It seems your concern is that the bounds of severity are undefined. What level of harassment and attacks do you consider acceptable? —Pathoschild 01:44:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  I want you to define the bounds of severity. I'm not trying to change the policy, you are. The past policy said only that edits which revealed personal information or libel were suppressible. So "Thatcher is a pedophile" is suppressible under the old policy but "Thatcher is an asshole", "Thatcher takes it up the ass" and "Thatcher picks his nose" are not suppressible, even though they are all clearly intended to attack, harass or annoy Thatcher. Recently on Wikipedia someone suppressed en:User:ZSCOUT370 is NAPOLEON DYNAMITE which, while probably intended to annoy or harass, could not remotely be considered personal information or libel. Also suppressed was en:User:Zscout370, there's no point in blocking these unused accounts, which is just plain trolling (and 4 years old at that). Someone also suppressed en:User:Baby covered in semen, which is not an attack on any user. If it is your intention to allow suppression of any user name that is intended to harass, annoy, irritate, or troll another user, as well as user names that are offensive without attacking a specific user, then say so. Vandal user names, including but not limited to those that attack, harass or annoy other editors, may be hidden on request. Thatcher 14:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  (For reference, the current wording is "Hiding of blatant attack names on automated lists and logs, where this does not disrupt edit histories. A blatant attack is one obviously intended to denigrate, threaten, libel, insult, or harass someone".)

  As I previously explained, the wording already addresses this. Only names which blatantly attack someone could be hidden; for example, "Thatcher is an asshole" is an attack. Neither "Zscout370, there's no point in blocking these unused accounts" nor "Baby covered in semen" are blatant attacks; they do not "denigrate, threaten, libel, insult, or harass someone". Is your specific concern with the inclusion of the word harass? I don't equate trolling with harassment, but it can certainly be changed if it's ambiguous. —Pathoschild 22:44:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  You've changed the policy without discussion to include a criterion allowing any username to be hidden, so I assume you no longer mind the more restrictive criterion discussed here. —Pathoschild 01:54:05, 02 November 2009 (UTC)

  <--I object to using suppression so broadly. But I also respect and accept consensus. Username suppression is currently being used in the manner I have described. The accounts I named above ("Baby covered in semen", "Zscout370, there's no point in blocking these unused accounts"), are suppressed, even though they do not meet your definition of an attack. Shall I make my point by showing you all the user names that have been suppressed by yourself, other stewards, and enwiki oversighters, that do not meet your definition of blatant attack, given above? We also have bureaucrats doing mass renames of vandal accounts to "Renamed user XXX" and then asking for the rename log to be suppressed. (If a name is not suppressible then neither is the rename log entry, and vice versa.) It is obvious to me that the consensus among people who actually have access to this function is that broadly suppressing vandal user names is acceptable. You may revert the policy or change the wording any way you want, but if you make the policy more restrictive than my broad version, then someone will have to ride herd on the dozens of people who are currently using this tool in a more liberal manner. Are you prepared to enforce the policy you wish to set? Thatcher 18:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  Yes; this policy is strictly enforced. Previous steward usage was more liberal only because it was not clear whether the oversight policy applied to blockhiding; stewards stopped suppressing names before this discussion even began, until a policy is defined. Users who deliberately violate this policy will lose their access as described in the Removal of access section. —Pathoschild 20:07:52, 02 November 2009 (UTC)

I was confused because the standard you proposed is more restrictive than your own recent practice. Of the last 100 suppressions recorded in the enwiki suppression log, for example, less than half meet the standard you have proposed, by my estimate. (I do not mean to single you out as many other oversighters are currently using a very liberal standard, you are the one who raised the issue.) When I originally noted my opposition because the current practice is much more liberal than the proposed new standard, it would have been so much simpler if you had said "Previous steward usage was more liberal only because it was not clear whether the oversight policy applied to blockhiding; stewards stopped suppressing names before this discussion even began, until a policy is defined" because then I would have better understood the purpose of the proposal. Or, when I pointed out "Baby covered in semen" and "Zscout370, there's no point in blocking these unused accounts", if you had said, "Those may have been suppressed but we are having second thoughts, that what this discussion is about," then I would have understood where you were coming from. I have not understood your purpose until now. A policy of hiding attack accounts, where attack means "harass and annoy registered contributors" (along with revealing personal info, which is already covered, of course) is very close to what I have been suggesting for some time on enwiki, and I can certainly live with the small difference in scope. Thatcher 20:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is this is a collective "Whoops, we shouldn't be so liberal". Do you want past suppressions undone if they don't fall under the standard discussed above?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a lower priority for me than getting our ducks in order going forward. There are a lot more useful things we could be doing with our time. I would not object to people reversing the suppressions but I would not volunteer to do it either, unless there was a strong demand for it. Thatcher 20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

After discussing with Cary (Volunteer Coordinator), I've updated the policy accordingly. —Pathoschild 00:14:57, 04 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm content with that. Thatcher 02:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Criterion #2

At present criterion #2 states that oversight/suppression is possible "when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be removed from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision".

It has been the practice for a long time, that potentially libelous information is removed on sight. The majority of potentially libelous material seems to be removed without a formal request from the subject, who in most cases may not even be aware at the time.

This has been the case long enough that it doesn't seem contentious - if there's likely or clearly libelous material then at present, any user routinely requests oversight, and any oversighter will remove it (or may remove it unasked), without waiting to see if the subject will make a "specific request".

This policy wording seems out of sync with accepted practice. The latter seems the better of the two; the wording seems to restrict and contradict best practice which is that as a community, potentially libelous material should be removed quickly, without waiting for a formal complaint by the subject a month down the line. Would people feel okay asking the Foundation to amend it as follows:

2. Removal of potentially libellous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be removed from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.

Note this does not change the criteria for oversighting; it just means we don't have to wait for a "specific request" by the subject, to do so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• This change would be more like the real world is. I guess there are some users who don't know about oversight and are unhappy to see this. But without request can't the oversighters do anything. This would surely be a good change. Furthermore, I think that it is from time to time the case that such libel info get removed without request. At all, I think this is a good change. I would be happy to see a change this way. --Barras 17:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Avi 17:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC) (EnWiki OS)
• I've actually been thinking about that statement for a long time, as usual the policies lag behind the reality and we should bring them in line or enforce what we have. Similar to the above discussion about hideuser the status quo makes the most sense, it would be silly to leave blatantly libelous statements on the wiki for what could amount to hours,days or longer. It should be removed as soon as possible. There is no reason for most of our oversighters to basically be braking the policies on a regular basis by doing what is right:  Support change as stated above to bring in line with already common,understood process. Jamesofur 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• This what I've been doing all along. I know libel when I see it, negative accusations unsupported by any reliable source, and think Mike Godwin has enough work to do. Fred Bauder 18:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I would support this. Especially since most oversighters I see do this already anyways. -Djsasso 19:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah, this one is really clearly a case of the page lagging behind the practice. I doubt anyone sane would advocate leaving libel that's been found until the subject requests removal.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, it just good common sense.--Peterdownunder 11:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Might there be a better description than "potentially libellous"? We have a problem translating it into german language. Does this mean insulting or´defamatory? (I have to add that, in de-WP, we take the policy very serious and I don't oversight things that are not asked for by the subject.)--Sargoth 12:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

+ --Nolispanmo 12:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC) [support for above comment [2]]

Sargoth: I think insulting or defamatory is a good way to say it (especially defamatory) the wiktionary definition may help Jamesofur 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• support —DerHexer (Talk) 18:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• support --Complex 20:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• support --Nolispanmo 21:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• support — YourEyesOnly 16:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• per the arguments above, support. --თოგო ^(D) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - per above. Potentially libelous information or defamation towards somebody should be removed without waiting for a request. Thanks, —Dferg ^(disputatio) 18:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - --Lucien leGrey (m · es) 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

---

How will this go on now? Since two weeks nobody added a statement; all added statements support the change. Who will or is able to decide that? Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think someone need to contact the board. --Barras 14:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I contacted Cary to see what the next step should be. I'm sure there is a board email but for some reason I couldn't find it right away... I'm sure he'll be able to point me the right direction. Jamesofur 15:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment This is a useful change to the policy and I can attest that would be no objection from the foundation. bastique ^demandez! 22:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

<- Given the unanimous support above, lack of discussion for the past couple weeks and Cary's statement I went ahead and made the change [here] Jamesofur 22:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)