Wikipedia talk:Oversight

Mailing list

Is there consensus for a mailing list? Since there's only four of us, this shouldn't be too hard to do. :)

Support

1. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
2. We could discuss its overall utility, but probably better than opposing. --Eptalon (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Even if I think that a community consensus is needed, I'll support this of course. We need to communicate with each other. Barras || talk 16:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Good idea. Peterdownunder, the almost an OS --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Majorly talk 12:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose Just kidding...lets do it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
7. I might not be an OS, but it would be very useful for us non-OSes to be able to contact you guys without needing to use IRC (the only other option, currently). EhJJ^TALK 15:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Support per EhJJ. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Per others. Pmlineditor  Talk 12:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Result

Consensus about this is reached and Cary Bass created a mailinglist for us oversighters. Barras (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Review

Could I get an oversight to review the oversighting of http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Mambo ? From what I can tell (RC feed), oversight was overkill here. EhJJ^TALK 01:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, total overkill. I've suppressed usernames and edits that grossly attack a very specific editor, but simple "u suck" stuff doesn't need anything other than simple deletion or reverting. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with EVula. An oversight was in this case absolutly not needed. I will talk to Peter, that he has the chance to say a word about this. I'll not undo it, I want first to hear Peter. Best Barras (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I informed the acting oversighter via mail about this. Barras (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an other fail: undelete Barras (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No that one is fine. There is liable there. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I should learn how to read... sorry. Barras (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Because Peter didn't replied until now and edited on wiki, I undid his suppression. Barras (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You can do that? I didn't think it was possible. Regardless, Peterdownunder wrote on my talk page a while back explaining that he agrees it was "heavy handed" and that he had a reason to do so. Personally, I don't really care about this particular suppression, as long as the tool isn't be overused, when reverting or revision deletion (rather than suppression) would be as effective. I think this can be considered resolved. EhJJ^TALK 20:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I think the suppression was not needed. There is also a block tool. And yes we can undo suppressions, but can't undo oversights. There is a difference. It was (like most stuff) only suppress. Barras (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Interesting. Suppression sounds like it would be a useful admin tool (to quickly suppress an edit versus deleting and restoring). Too bad only OSes can do that. I can understand why oversight would be limited to a smaller group of people, given that it deletes info from the databases. Thanks for your help, Barras. EhJJ^TALK 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Suppressissing is the "oversight" tool. The tool you mean, is the revision delete, which will be enable somewhen in the future. Barras (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

New suppression interface

Is someone good with MediaWiki? On the suppression page si now a section "Reason for deletion:" like the deltion page. It lists only "personal info" and "copyvio". The third one "libel" is missing. Can someone fix this? Barras (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Revdelete-reason-dropdown -- Mercy (☎|✍) 13:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Mercy. I just created the MediWiki page. Barras (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy change discussed

Hi there!

I just found this on meta. A policy for hidding usernames (a part of the oversight tool that wasn't really clear) is discussed there. Just a service link, feel free to give you thoughts there. Barras (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Quickly fixed error

Contact section : « It is also possible to directly contact an oversigher, they are listed below. »

"oversigher" needs to be replaced by "oversighter". Cheers - [CharlieEchoTango] 10:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Exert 04:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please remove all interwiki links. They are handled by Wikidata.--GZWDer (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done -Barras talk 07:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your list of instruments did not include harmonica aka “harp” Jjnepsa3 (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for new mailing list

Hello. Please see m:Requests for comment/Oversight mailing list for a current request for comment on creating an oversighter mailing list. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Improvement suggestion

The phrase "[T]he safest bet is to send a mail" should be modified to instead say, "[T]he safest way to report an edit is to send an email to". I think that the use of the word "bet" would be confusing on the Simple English Wikipedia, and the phrase "send a mail [email address]" has grammar issues. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done -DJSasso (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Editprotected?

Please consider to put the template {{Pp-protected}} as the page itself is protected from editing. --Znotch190711 ^{(Talk - Contributions - CentralAuth)} 11:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change "The old method was through Special:HideRevision, which is discouraged. Evidence of the edit is removed entirely from public logs, and can only be restored by developers if there is a mistake." to "The old method was through Special:HideRevision, which no longer works; edits hidden using the old method were permanently removed from public logs, and could only be restored by system administrators", as the Oversight extension no longer is deployed on simplewiki, where the current wording simply implies that it's discouraged from use. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 02:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. -Djsasso (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: May 2021

I found a user called User:Oversight~simplewiki. Can't that be added as a contact method? Darubrub (Let me know) 16:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Eptalon and Fehufanga: Perhaps a little odd of me to respond to a request from over 3 years ago, but does emailing the user above count as a contact method? Are you able to test if it still works? --Ferien (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Change request: 21 October 2024

{{ChangeProtected}} In the section Wikipedia:Oversight#Users with oversight, it says Times active (Days/Hours (UTC)), however, under that, there is a time-frame in AST, not UTC. This might be confusing. Can you please change from

08:00 - 24:00 AST

to

12:00 – 04:00 UTC <br /> 08:00 – 24:00 AST

or

 12:00 – 04:00 UTC (08:00 – 24:00 AST)

or however you prefer, as long as it's less confusing. Thank you! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ferien: Thank you ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 20:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)