Talk:Oversight policy/Archives/2008
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2008, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Title
Would Oversight not be better? After all, that's what this page is concerned with. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 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 DissidentTalk 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"
lists
wikimediaorg.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Policy is unclear
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)