We appear to have lose access to the Oversight logs altogether. Is there any explanation for this at all? I presume without this slight accountability measure in place the oversight privileges have also been revoked from those who have them.
~Mark Ryan
The reason given by Brion VIBBER in the commit log was "Consensus seems to be to drop the public log, now that we have a private log." I've posted a message on his talk page to express that some of us do indeed not entirely agree with this move (myself included). Awaiting his response.
-- AmiDaniel
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Ryan" ultrablue@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:57 AM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Oversight log
We appear to have lose access to the Oversight logs altogether. Is there any explanation for this at all? I presume without this slight accountability measure in place the oversight privileges have also been revoked from those who have them.
~Mark Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/21/06, Dan Cannon unlogischerdenker@hotmail.com wrote:
The reason given by Brion VIBBER in the commit log was "Consensus seems to be to drop the public log, now that we have a private log." I've posted a message on his talk page to express that some of us do indeed not entirely agree with this move (myself included). Awaiting his response.
It's a tricky problem. If you publish the full log, anyone with a database dump can retrieve the deleted revisions and publish them (Wikitruth etc.). The point is to remove personal information and legally problematic revisions without them re-appearing the next day on some other website.
I understand that oversight people now have the ability to view the deleted revisions, so there should at least be some mutual control. Perhaps a version of the log oculd be made visible where the actual page titles are not shown, but only the basic activity (e.g. "User X removed a revision because of personal information").
As the oversight group is fairly small, the process for appointing new members needs not be too bureaucratic. However, if the group grows, I think it would be good if people appointed by the ArbCom (as Essjay in the current group was) would have to be confirmed by the community, to demonstrate that the community is involved, and to alleviate concerns about "cabalism".
Erik
The suitable initial group seems clear enough: every administrator.
Beyond that, the censored log should be available to everyone. Administrators often have more than enough to do and any assistance non-administrators can do in the way of oversight is a good thing.
Removing the page isn't close to sufficient - it conceals what is perhaps the most significant part of what is being overseen: who is doing what, where and still concealed from most, why.
It's worth remembering that a few million pages with things not vanishing completely have not brought the encyclopedia or Foundation down. Making sure we have ample oversight so that people actually look hard at what is being done and mention problems is important to our process.
Without broad oversight, the capability to make thing silently vanish should also be vanishing.
James Day
The problem is that what we are removing is stuff like personal information or libelous statements that we really do want to vanish and not be repeated internally.
Fred
On Jun 21, 2006, at 10:07 PM, James wrote:
The suitable initial group seems clear enough: every administrator.
Beyond that, the censored log should be available to everyone. Administrators often have more than enough to do and any assistance non-administrators can do in the way of oversight is a good thing.
Removing the page isn't close to sufficient - it conceals what is perhaps the most significant part of what is being overseen: who is doing what, where and still concealed from most, why.
It's worth remembering that a few million pages with things not vanishing completely have not brought the encyclopedia or Foundation down. Making sure we have ample oversight so that people actually look hard at what is being done and mention problems is important to our process.
Without broad oversight, the capability to make thing silently vanish should also be vanishing.
James Day
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The problem is that what we are removing is stuff like personal information or libelous statements that we really do want to vanish and not be repeated internally.
Fred
Of course, but oversight from the broadest practical group is still required. I'm not expecting much in the way of trouble from admins abusing their capability and in the event that there is some, the admin concerned can be dealt with in other ways.
What I don't want to see is us making it sufficiently interesting that people start routinely publishing differences between database dumps to highlight what is removed, or start routinely capturing and comparing "hot" pages to look for such things. So much oversight that it's obviously being looked after is one way to do that.
James Day
On 6/21/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The problem is that what we are removing is stuff like personal information or libelous statements that we really do want to vanish and not be repeated internally.
Then the log as viewable to the world at large should say something like '10:49, 22 June 2006 Fred Bauder deleted 1 revision(s) of "George W. Bush" (Personal information)'
On 22/06/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The problem is that what we are removing is stuff like personal information or libelous statements that we really do want to vanish and not be repeated internally.
Then the log as viewable to the world at large should say something like '10:49, 22 June 2006 Fred Bauder deleted 1 revision(s) of "George W. Bush" (Personal information)'
An idle thought vaguely prompted by this... you know what would be nice? After a normal deletion, for the history to go from
* 12:13 2006-01-01 User:Adam m. (Fixed typo) * 12.54 2006-01-01 User:Bill (Expanded biographical section) * 13.17 2006-01-01 User:Vandal (...) * 13:22 2006-01-01 User:NotAdmin (Remove defamation)
to
* 12:13 2006-01-01 User:Adam m. (Fixed typo) * 12.54 2006-01-01 User:Bill (Expanded biographical section) * 13.17 2006-01-01 User:Admin [Revision deleted (Defamatory material)] * 13:22 2006-01-01 User:NotAdmin (Remove defamation)
rather than
* There is one deleted revision. * 12:13 2006-01-01 User:Adam m. (Fixed typo) * 12.54 2006-01-01 User:Bill (Expanded biographical section) * 13:22 2006-01-01 User:NotAdmin (Remove defamation)
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 22/06/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The problem is that what we are removing is stuff like personal information or libelous statements that we really do want to vanish and not be repeated internally.
Then the log as viewable to the world at large should say something like '10:49, 22 June 2006 Fred Bauder deleted 1 revision(s) of "George W. Bush" (Personal information)'
An idle thought vaguely prompted by this... you know what would be nice? After a normal deletion, for the history to go from
- 12:13 2006-01-01 User:Adam m. (Fixed typo)
- 12.54 2006-01-01 User:Bill (Expanded biographical section)
- 13.17 2006-01-01 User:Vandal (...)
- 13:22 2006-01-01 User:NotAdmin (Remove defamation)
to
- 12:13 2006-01-01 User:Adam m. (Fixed typo)
- 12.54 2006-01-01 User:Bill (Expanded biographical section)
- 13.17 2006-01-01 User:Admin [Revision deleted (Defamatory material)]
- 13:22 2006-01-01 User:NotAdmin (Remove defamation)
rather than
- There is one deleted revision.
- 12:13 2006-01-01 User:Adam m. (Fixed typo)
- 12.54 2006-01-01 User:Bill (Expanded biographical section)
- 13:22 2006-01-01 User:NotAdmin (Remove defamation)
No. Absolutely not. If anyone apart from the oversight group knows that a revision has been deleted, they can just find a database dump that was taken before the deletion occurred, compare the history, and go post the deleted revision somewhere else on the internet.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
<snip>
Sorry, I thought you were still talking about oversight. My mistake. Yes, I agree with you.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
No. Absolutely not. If anyone apart from the oversight group knows that a revision has been deleted, they can just find a database dump that was taken before the deletion occurred, compare the history, and go post the deleted revision somewhere else on the internet.
Couldn't they just compare pre- and post-deletion database dumps to find the "missing" revision anyway, if they're willing to spend that much effort? SQL is good for these sorts of searches.
It seems to me that attempting to come up with a "perfect" system for expunging all traces of an edit from existence utterly and without recourse is going to run pretty solidly against the fundamentally open nature of Wikipedia required by the GFDL. And at some point doesn't it become more the _other_ guy's responsibility if he's going to go to that much effort to dig libel out of old database dumps and republish it?
Okay, I appreciate that listing the article name may prompt investigative types to go searching for the deleted revisions on dumps. But to close off all public record of this potentially GFDL-violating tool is very worrying to me.
Is there *any* reason not to have a bare log of oversight actions? Even without the page title, I'd like to see who removes an edit and when, with a reason (like "Personal Information"). Perhaps with some sort of unique tag (in the style of the autoblocks). This information would in no way give away the version removed or from what page it was removed, and it would reveal who was using the tools the most. Like:
22:17, 23 June 2006 Jimbo Wales removed a revision (ID #123456789). Reason given was: "Personally identifiable information"
Any reason why that is unacceptable?
~Mark Ryan
On 6/23/06, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
22:17, 23 June 2006 Jimbo Wales removed a revision (ID #123456789). Reason given was: "Personally identifiable information"
Any reason why that is unacceptable?
~Mark Ryan
No objections from me for this type of log.
Theresa
On 6/23/06, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, I appreciate that listing the article name may prompt investigative types to go searching for the deleted revisions on dumps.
Or to the many mirrors of Wikipedia, as has happened.
But to close off all public record of this potentially GFDL-violating tool is very worrying to me.
How would it violate GFDL, and what would the "worrying" consequences be?
Is there *any* reason not to have a bare log of oversight actions? Even without the page title, I'd like to see who removes an edit and when, with a reason (like "Personal Information"). Perhaps with some sort of unique tag (in the style of the autoblocks). This information would in no way give away the version removed or from what page it was removed, and it would reveal who was using the tools the most. Like:
22:17, 23 June 2006 Jimbo Wales removed a revision (ID #123456789). Reason given was: "Personally identifiable information"
Any reason why that is unacceptable?
Of what benefit would that information be, and to whom? What would the subsequent action be, some editor saying "why did Jimbo remove that revision on June 23"? He's already said why, Personal Information. This suggestion would just turn the log into a fishing expedition for distrustful editors.
Jay.
On 23/06/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
How would it violate GFDL, and what would the "worrying" consequences be?
I said it was "potentially GFDL-violating". Surely you, as a member of the ArbCom, know of the attribution requirements of the GFDL. Carnildo pointed out an example of one such situation earlier in this thread. And I'm a little concerned that you don't seem to think violation on our part of the GFDL would be worrying in itself.
Of what benefit would that information be, and to whom? What would the subsequent action be, some editor saying "why did Jimbo remove that revision on June 23"? He's already said why, Personal Information. This suggestion would just turn the log into a fishing expedition for distrustful editors.
I see what you mean about the fishing trip. But I still feel a listing of these actions would be beneficial purely for the statistics it would show.
I think you are under the mistaken delusion that members of the ArbCom are automatically trusted by the community. I know less than the half the people given this oversight power, and of those, I trust even fewer. These people (including yourself) have been given access to what was effectively a developer-only action, and are asking the rest of us to "just trust you" that you'll all make sure you're all doing the right thing. That doesn't cut the mustard with me. I trust the developers I used to get to do this manually far more than most of the people now afforded this power. If User X is doing 95% of the oversight revision deletions, I'd like to know about it.
This is different to the CheckUser logs because this has content implications, not privacy implications.
On 6/23/06, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/06/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
How would it violate GFDL, and what would the "worrying" consequences be?
I said it was "potentially GFDL-violating". Surely you, as a member of the ArbCom, know of the attribution requirements of the GFDL. Carnildo pointed out an example of one such situation earlier in this thread.
I'm looking for someone who will state what they believe the likelihood of this happening, and what the practical consequences might be.
And I'm a little concerned that you don't seem to think violation on our part of the GFDL would be worrying in itself.
I'm a little concerned that you are trying to turn this into a discussion about me, rather than a discussion about the practical consequences of using the "Oversight" capability.
Of what benefit would that information be, and to whom? What would the subsequent action be, some editor saying "why did Jimbo remove that revision on June 23"? He's already said why, Personal Information. This suggestion would just turn the log into a fishing expedition for distrustful editors.
I see what you mean about the fishing trip. But I still feel a listing of these actions would be beneficial purely for the statistics it would show.
I think you are under the mistaken delusion that members of the ArbCom are automatically trusted by the community. I know less than the half the people given this oversight power, and of those, I trust even fewer.
I'm not under any "mistaken delusions". :-) Nevertheless, the community has shown significant support for many of the members, particularly in the recent elections. Of course, every member elected also got oppose votes, so distrust (at least by the opposers) is inevitable.
These people (including yourself) have been given access to what was effectively a developer-only action, and are asking the rest of us to "just trust you" that you'll all make sure you're all doing the right thing. That doesn't cut the mustard with me. I trust the developers I used to get to do this manually far more than most of the people now afforded this power.
How were the developers elected, and what made you trust them?
If User X is doing 95% of the oversight revision deletions, I'd like to know about it.
Hmm. For a while there someone was doing 95% of the CheckUsers, because they were willing to put in the hundreds of hours of volunteer time required to do it. Is that suspicious in some way?
This is different to the CheckUser logs because this has content implications, not privacy implications.
Are content implications more serious than privacy implications?
Jay.
On 23/06/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I'm looking for someone who will state what they believe the likelihood of this happening, and what the practical consequences might be.
I guess deletion/selective undeletion in itself has GFDL consequences. But then again, there is a log given for deletions by admins.
I'm not under any "mistaken delusions". :-) Nevertheless, the community has shown significant support for many of the members, particularly in the recent elections. Of course, every member elected also got oppose votes, so distrust (at least by the opposers) is inevitable.
How were the developers elected, and what made you trust them?
The developers were not elected (and neither, technically, was the ArbCom either). Brion is an employee of Wikimedia, and therefore is subject to actual legal duties relating to the carrying out of his functions. Tim Starling I have known for over 3 years and has always displayed the utmost integrity, particularly when dealing with situations involving the removal of sensitive information from the 'pedia.
But that is beside the point. It still hasn't been explained why the Arbitrators were selected as the main repositories of these powers. Does the removal of revisions crop up frequently in arbitrations undertaken by the ArbCom? Or has the ArbCom somehow morphed into something more than an Arbitration Committee, to be some sort of Content Management Committee?
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines 'arbitrator' as "an independent person or body officially appointed to settle a dispute".
Also, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]] says nothing about the ArbCom having any role beyond resolving disputes.
Are content implications more serious than privacy implications?
No. I'm saying the opposite. The reason the CheckUser logs are private is because of the significant privacy implications involved in accessing our server data. Only those Officially appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation should be able to access such data/logs.
On the other hand, the question of revision content is not immediately related to the questions of privacy laws.
On 6/23/06, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote: It still hasn't been explained why the
Arbitrators were selected as the main repositories of these powers. Does the removal of revisions crop up frequently in arbitrations undertaken by the ArbCom? Or has the ArbCom somehow morphed into something more than an Arbitration Committee, to be some sort of Content Management Committee?
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines 'arbitrator' as "an independent person or body officially appointed to settle a dispute".
Also, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]] says nothing about the ArbCom having any role beyond resolving disputes.
If anyone can suggest a bunch of people who as a body have sufficient respect and trust among the community who could replace the ArbCom in this role, I for one would be completely happy to pass it up. I agree that the Arbitration Committee should be primarily about resolving disputes. What is /de facto/ true, however, is that the Committee is a collection of editors whom Jimbo knows and trusts and therefore, to some degree, some expansion of the remit is bound to occur.
It's not great, no, and in an ideal world it would not be to the Arbitration Committee that these powers were granted. I have no great desire for them. Yet purely from a practical standpoint (i.e. only so many hours in a developer-day), the delegation of these powers to editors is necessary, and the Arbitration Committee is the only current body that can fill the role needed.
On 6/24/06, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
But that is beside the point. It still hasn't been explained why the Arbitrators were selected as the main repositories of these powers. Does the removal of revisions crop up frequently in arbitrations undertaken by the ArbCom? Or has the ArbCom somehow morphed into something more than an Arbitration Committee, to be some sort of Content Management Committee?
It's not a function of the ArbCom per se, it's an ability that has been given to all of the current members of the ArbCom because they happen to be some of the most trusted and experienced users on the wiki. That reasoning is clear because the ability was given to Essjay too.
jayjg wrote:
On 6/23/06, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
If User X is doing 95% of the oversight revision deletions, I'd like to know about it.
Hmm. For a while there someone was doing 95% of the CheckUsers, because they were willing to put in the hundreds of hours of volunteer time required to do it. Is that suspicious in some way?
Yes. I would find it suspicious, at any rate. And then I (or someone else, actually, since I haven't paid much attention to CheckUser stuff) would go around asking "hey, how come User X is doing 95% of the CheckUser stuff?" and get various answers from various people amounting to "because it's a big hassle to do and he's the only one willing to volunteer the time." That would allay my suspicions.
The fact that suspicions are raised is not necessarily a slight on the person under suspicion, IMO. It's good to be able to get these things out in the open and _confirm_ that nothing untoward is going on.
This is different to the CheckUser logs because this has content implications, not privacy implications.
Are content implications more serious than privacy implications?
Wikipedia's goal is to produce content. Protecting the privacy of its users is only a means to that end - an important means, IMO, but not the _most_ important. Otherwise why allow CheckUser to be used at all?
G'day jayjg,
On 6/23/06, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
22:17, 23 June 2006 Jimbo Wales removed a revision (ID #123456789). Reason given was: "Personally identifiable information"
Any reason why that is unacceptable?
Of what benefit would that information be, and to whom? What would the subsequent action be, some editor saying "why did Jimbo remove that revision on June 23"? He's already said why, Personal Information. This suggestion would just turn the log into a fishing expedition for distrustful editors.
If Jimbo is using the Oversight power ten times more often than any other person with Oversight privs, that's something I'd like to know.
On 6/22/06, James user_jamesday@myrealbox.com wrote:
Beyond that, the censored log should be available to everyone. Administrators often have more than enough to do and any assistance non-administrators can do in the way of oversight is a good thing.
Do you mean the complete log that is now available to those with oversight permissions (including details of the hidden revisions)? Making that public would really defy the point of hiding revisions in the first place; oversight has been used almost exclusively (if not exclusively) so far for hiding revisions with personal information in them, and they were hidden because noone should be able to view them.
If you mean the incomplete log that was available publically before the complete log was developed (which merely indicated who had been using the tool, and when), then I would support that being restored in parallel to the complete private log.
Complete log including revision text to all administrators (and action, including removal of the full view capability from the administrator concerned, taken if an administrator misuses the capability) and the former incomplete censored one without the contents of the text available to all.
That makes it pretty easy for anyone to question an act and any administrator (perhaps the one they trust most) to check on it and reassure them that it merited removal.
And revisit perhaps in the event that we see a regular pattern of problems arising from this. Could happen; we'll see.
James Day
TK: "Unfortunately this means that the log itself has to be kept private. Those people with oversight can view it. No one else can."
What people seem to disagree with is with the notion that the log "has to be kept private" due to someone's claim of 'legally problematic revisions.' Is Google facilitating the "damage of Starbucks' reputation" by not removing "consumer whore" from its Image searches?
Understanding that legal systems are not always reasonable, WM cant reasonably be responsible for everything in the history of its articles. And to say the risk is great is simply to court the clique of privelege who think they can simply make a phone call and get things deleted through a privileged legalistic and back-door process -- for what everyone else does with the edit button.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 6/22/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
What people seem to disagree with is with the notion that the log "has to be kept private" due to someone's claim of 'legally problematic revisions.' Is Google facilitating the "damage of Starbucks' reputation" by not removing "consumer whore" from its Image searches?
That might be an appropriate stance towards potentially libellous revisions that are hidden, but from random sampling of the old log, most of the revisions hidden so far seem to have been hidden because they contain personal information, which I'm sure we all want to keep hidden.
On Jun 22, 2006, at 1:00 AM, stevertigo wrote:
Understanding that legal systems are not always reasonable, WM cant reasonably be responsible for everything in the history of its articles. And to say the risk is great is simply to court the clique of privelege who think they can simply make a phone call and get things deleted through a privileged legalistic and back-door process -- for what everyone else does with the edit button.
Stevertigo
You say you understand that "legal systems are not always reasonable". But you do not connect the dots. We can take steps to reduce the chance we will be the victim of judicial unreasonableness. As to the clique of privilege, there is a small stratum in society which has the money, power and prestige to use the legal system (or effectively publicize their distress). We do not court them, they are simply more confident that a complaint will be responded too, so are more likely to complain. A complaint from anyone would hopefully receive equal consideration.
Fred
I think people are seriously underestimating the seriousness of some personal privacy violations.
stevertigo wrote:
TK: "Unfortunately this means that the log itself has to be kept private. Those people with oversight can view it. No one else can."
What people seem to disagree with is with the notion that the log "has to be kept private" due to someone's claim of 'legally problematic revisions.' Is Google facilitating the "damage of Starbucks' reputation" by not removing "consumer whore" from its Image searches?
Understanding that legal systems are not always reasonable, WM cant reasonably be responsible for everything in the history of its articles. And to say the risk is great is simply to court the clique of privelege who think they can simply make a phone call and get things deleted through a privileged legalistic and back-door process -- for what everyone else does with the edit button.
Stevertigo
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/22/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think people are seriously underestimating the seriousness of some personal privacy violations.
Since the problem existed pre oversite the odds are quite a few admins know exactly how serious the problem is.
geni wrote:
On 6/22/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think people are seriously underestimating the seriousness of some personal privacy violations.
Since the problem existed pre oversite the odds are quite a few admins know exactly how serious the problem is.
Given the reponses I've seen from admins (both on this list and elsewhere), they clearly don't.
On 6/22/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think people are seriously underestimating the seriousness of some personal privacy violations.
I am curious as to what situations could have happened here.
Coming from almost 20 years experience in Usenet, having trolls and kooks show up and sometimes post people's home addresses and phone numbers and work contact info including boss and so on... most of these blow over without any notable harm other than people's sensitivity.
I would be less happy with my Social Security Number or Drivers License going up somewhere, but I've had my home address and phone number spammed by nuts.
On Jun 23, 2006, at 4:51 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On 6/22/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think people are seriously underestimating the seriousness of some personal privacy violations.
I am curious as to what situations could have happened here.
Coming from almost 20 years experience in Usenet, having trolls and kooks show up and sometimes post people's home addresses and phone numbers and work contact info including boss and so on... most of these blow over without any notable harm other than people's sensitivity.
I would be less happy with my Social Security Number or Drivers License going up somewhere, but I've had my home address and phone number spammed by nuts.
You take your victim as you find them. If you kill a person with a thin skull it is still manslaughter.
Some of our editor are not very tough characters. Perhaps they have led sheltered scholarly lives.
We do what we can to prevent harassment.
Fred
On 6/23/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think people are seriously underestimating the seriousness of some personal privacy violations.
I am curious as to what situations could have happened here.
Coming from almost 20 years experience in Usenet, having trolls and kooks show up and sometimes post people's home addresses and phone numbers and work contact info including boss and so on... most of these blow over without any notable harm other than people's sensitivity.
I would be less happy with my Social Security Number or Drivers License going up somewhere, but I've had my home address and phone number spammed by nuts.
You take your victim as you find them. If you kill a person with a thin skull it is still manslaughter.
Some of our editor are not very tough characters. Perhaps they have led sheltered scholarly lives.
We do what we can to prevent harassment.
I certainly don't intend to stand for the proposition that we should encourage or stand passively by in cases of harrassment. Deleting it when inappropriate personal info is inserted somewhere is clearly good policy. Taking action against chronic abuser accounts is fine by me, too.
What worries me is the apparent prevailing opinion that this is such a terrible, serious problem. I don't see it that way, based on my prior internet experience. I don't see it that way, based on the cases I have seen on Wikipedia in the last year. I don't see it as necessary to exaggerate how serious a problem it is, to justify continuing to remove the material and block or ban accounts which post it.
The responses are justified to end attempts to cause serious harrassment of WP editors, whether those attempts are ultimately successful or not. As a rule I would expect them not to be successful, based on prior experience. They should still be responded to as a legitimate attempt to harrass someone, and all such attempts should be taken seriously, ineffectual or not.
On 22/06/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
TK: "Unfortunately this means that the log itself has to be kept private. Those people with oversight can view it. No one else can."
What people seem to disagree with is with the notion that the log "has to be kept private" due to someone's claim of 'legally problematic revisions.' Is Google facilitating the "damage of Starbucks' reputation" by not removing "consumer whore" from its Image searches?
Understanding that legal systems are not always reasonable, WM cant reasonably be responsible for everything in the history of its articles. And to say the risk is great is simply to court the clique of privelege who think they can simply make a phone call and get things deleted through a privileged legalistic and back-door process -- for what everyone else does with the edit button.
Wait, wait, wait.
There isn't a "clique of privilege" who "think they can get ... a back-door process". There are normal people who write to us saying "You have an article about X school, where I work, giving my home address and saying I'm a child molestor. Please get rid of this!"
It's not only impolite to expect people to tactfully and quietly learn how our system works and remove this material, it's also fundamentally stupid. /That isn't going to happen/. They're going to write to us, and we're going to have to handle it.
And the risk *is* great - I've dealt with a suprising number of emails to the info-en address which complain about their article and say *someone else told them*. What if that someone else is the employer, the client... the schools inspector?
We cannot be held legally liable for everything that's there. We may not even be legally liable for leaving it up once they've told us it's there (though I'm sure that question will be tested by someone somewhere someday). But we are *morally* liable if we don't at least try to do something about helping a person who, through no fault of their own, is suffering from the misuse of our resources. It's simple humanity.
And on the first part... if we're deleting these things, expunging them totally, is there any *reason* for the log to be public? Any at all? Oversight, perhaps. But... what effect does this oversight have? Are we really, honestly, concerned about the dozen people with this capacity using it in some nefarious way to win arguments or to rewrite history? I sound like I'm attacking a strawman here, but I honestly don't think I've seen a good reason why people think this tool is dangerous. Please, someone, give me a scenario where this could be used badly, where the ability to expunge deleted revisions is somehow harmful in a way that a public log would prevent...
On 6/22/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I sound like I'm attacking a strawman here, but I honestly don't think I've seen a good reason why people think this tool is dangerous. Please, someone, give me a scenario where this could be used badly, where the ability to expunge deleted revisions is somehow harmful in a way that a public log would prevent...
Person A vandalizes a biographical article, replacing believable claims to notability with unbelievable ones. Person B, not realizing that the article was vandalized, lists it for deletion. Person C reverts the vandalism. Person A's edit is vanished.
At this point, to anyone looking through the article history, it appears that person B is attacking the subject of the article, trying to get that article deleted.
On 22/06/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I sound like I'm attacking a strawman here, but I honestly don't think I've seen a good reason why people think this tool is dangerous. Please, someone, give me a scenario where this could be used badly, where the ability to expunge deleted revisions is somehow harmful in a way that a public log would prevent...
Person A vandalizes a biographical article, replacing believable claims to notability with unbelievable ones. Person B, not realizing that the article was vandalized, lists it for deletion. Person C reverts the vandalism. Person A's edit is vanished.
At this point, to anyone looking through the article history, it appears that person B is attacking the subject of the article, trying to get that article deleted.
Does anyone do history deletions this way? I don't. You don't delete the revision where the material was *added*, you delete *the revisions containing the material* (which can be a real bastard if it wasn't caught for ages)
This way does leave minor attribution problems, but nothing a note or three can't cure, and it's certainly better than the alternative. Incidentally, because of the odd way we show deleted revisions, the same problem would apply for non-admins (or admins who don't look very hard) even without bringing in oversight...
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 22/06/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
Person A vandalizes a biographical article, replacing believable claims to notability with unbelievable ones. Person B, not realizing that the article was vandalized, lists it for deletion. Person C reverts the vandalism. Person A's edit is vanished.
At this point, to anyone looking through the article history, it appears that person B is attacking the subject of the article, trying to get that article deleted.
Does anyone do history deletions this way? I don't. You don't delete the revision where the material was *added*, you delete *the revisions containing the material* (which can be a real bastard if it wasn't caught for ages)
Sometimes people do, presumably by accident. I've cleaned up after one instance, which I could detect and fix since that was a case of ordinary deletion.
Andrew Gray wrote:
And the risk *is* great - I've dealt with a suprising number of emails to the info-en address which complain about their article and say *someone else told them*. What if that someone else is the employer, the client... the schools inspector?
We cannot be held legally liable for everything that's there. We may not even be legally liable for leaving it up once they've told us it's there (though I'm sure that question will be tested by someone somewhere someday). But we are *morally* liable if we don't at least try to do something about helping a person who, through no fault of their own, is suffering from the misuse of our resources. It's simple humanity.
And on the first part... if we're deleting these things, expunging them totally, is there any *reason* for the log to be public? Any at all? Oversight, perhaps. But... what effect does this oversight have? Are we really, honestly, concerned about the dozen people with this capacity using it in some nefarious way to win arguments or to rewrite history? I sound like I'm attacking a strawman here, but I honestly don't think I've seen a good reason why people think this tool is dangerous. Please, someone, give me a scenario where this could be used badly, where the ability to expunge deleted revisions is somehow harmful in a way that a public log would prevent...
I agree totally with much of what you say here. The only thing I'll disagree with is that I would say there /is/ a risk of harm from misuse. One problem is that using this facility can distort the history. Anything added in a deleted edit, and not reverted in later edits, will be attributed to the wrong editor when the deletion is done. This can happen with normal deletions, but at least there it's easy for a lot of people to see the real story.
The other risk is it being used to remove information that it's important for the community to know. Removing problem edits to hide them from arbitrators for example.
The first is a necessary evil, but a reason for care and a record of deletions viewable by some. The second is less likely, and not a problem when those with oversight can see what each other are doing and what has been deleted.
I think the current system is the best balance. Those with oversight are responsible for ensuring that none of the group misuse or overuse this ability, but the information is cleanly removed from view.
-- sannse
On 6/22/06, James user_jamesday@myrealbox.com wrote:
Complete log including revision text to all administrators (and action, including removal of the full view capability from the administrator concerned, taken if an administrator misuses the capability) and the former incomplete censored one without the contents of the text available to all.
Wow, so thousands of people can now see the libellous or personal information that the tool was intended to remove in the first place? Sounds completely self-defeating.
That makes it pretty easy for anyone to question an act and any administrator (perhaps the one they trust most) to check on it and reassure them that it merited removal.
Great, thousands of queries constantly coming in now, from any of the tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors, so that we can further spread the damage. "Oh, turns out X removed information stating that politician Y is a serial rapist. Pass this on to anyone else who wants to know."
And revisit perhaps in the event that we see a regular pattern of problems arising from this. Could happen; we'll see.
What is likely to happen is a regular pattern of querelous and tendentious questioning of any deletion done, followed by inevitable leakage of whatever damaging stuff was deleted in the first place.
Jay.
On 6/22/06, James user_jamesday@myrealbox.com wrote:
Complete log including revision text to all administrators (and action, including removal of the full view capability from the administrator concerned, taken if an administrator misuses the capability) and the former incomplete censored one without the contents of the text available to all.
Wow, so thousands of people can now see the libellous or personal information that the tool was intended to remove in the first place? Sounds completely self-defeating.
That's fine when its those administrating the project - the project administrators - who are able to see it to carry out their role.
That makes it pretty easy for anyone to question an act and any administrator (perhaps the one they trust most) to check on it and reassure them that it merited removal.
Great, thousands of queries constantly coming in now, from any of
the
tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors, so that we can further
spread
the damage. "Oh, turns out X removed information stating that politician Y is a serial rapist. Pass this on to anyone else who wants to know."
I trust that you would instead say "I've looked and the removal accords with this (specified) policy of xx Wikipedia".
And revisit perhaps in the event that we see a regular pattern of problems arising from this. Could happen; we'll see.
What is likely to happen is a regular pattern of querelous and tendentious questioning of any deletion done, followed by inevitable leakage of whatever damaging stuff was deleted in the first place.
I suggest you see the proper reply above and use that instead of the one you suggested. As for the questioning, that's a good thing - we're _supposed_ to have our actions questioned. It's part of what oversight is about.
James Day
On 6/22/06, James user_jamesday@myrealbox.com wrote:
Complete log including revision text to all administrators (and action, including removal of the full view capability from the administrator concerned, taken if an administrator misuses the capability) and the former incomplete censored one without the contents of the text available to all.
Wow, so thousands of people can now see the libellous or personal information that the tool was intended to remove in the first place? Sounds completely self-defeating.
That's fine when its those administrating the project - the project administrators - who are able to see it to carry out their role.
All admins should *not*, _not_, NOT have access to all of this, because, frankly (and this is sad to say), I don't trust every admin. Why do you think some people voice their opposition to their RfAs? There has been some shady business, and I think those that were initially given the rights to oversight are plenty to ensure nothing is abused. Sorry. --LV
On 6/22/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/06, James user_jamesday@myrealbox.com wrote:
Complete log including revision text to all administrators (and action, including removal of the full view capability from the administrator concerned, taken if an administrator misuses the capability) and the former incomplete censored one without the contents of the text available to all.
Wow, so thousands of people can now see the libellous or personal information that the tool was intended to remove in the first place? Sounds completely self-defeating.
That's fine when its those administrating the project - the project administrators - who are able to see it to carry out their role.
All admins should *not*, _not_, NOT have access to all of this, because, frankly (and this is sad to say), I don't trust every admin. Why do you think some people voice their opposition to their RfAs?
Exactly. Sad, but with 1000 admins, inevitable. And some of the stuff that is being deleted could seriously endanger people (particularly personal information). On the other hand, I still haven't heard anyone explain exactly what the *real, practical* danger is of deleting an edit.
Jay.
On 6/22/06, James user_jamesday@myrealbox.com wrote:
The suitable initial group seems clear enough: every administrator.
No. Apart from anything else see wikitruth.
The suitable initial group seems clear enough: every
administrator.
No. Apart from anything else see wikitruth.
If any administrator has already misused this "with edit contents" capability to obtain the contents of a hidden revision that was properly removed and publish those specific contents there, then do exclude that administrator from the initial set of administrators with the capability.
This seems very unlikely at present, since it's only been available to a limited set of administrators.
James Day
On 6/22/06, James user_jamesday@myrealbox.com wrote:
The suitable initial group seems clear enough: every administrator.
1000 people? That's an absurdly large group. As it is there are administrators digging up deleted articles and posting them on other websites.
Beyond that, the censored log should be available to everyone. Administrators often have more than enough to do and any assistance non-administrators can do in the way of oversight is a good thing.
No, the log should not be available to everyone. I can't see what possible good that could come from it, and the log itself could be used to reveal the very kinds of things it is intended to conceal (e.g. personal information).
Removing the page isn't close to sufficient - it conceals what is perhaps the most significant part of what is being overseen: who is doing what, where and still concealed from most, why.
What's the danger here? What horrible thing will happen if some edit disappears from the history?
It's worth remembering that a few million pages with things not vanishing completely have not brought the encyclopedia or Foundation down.
Um, not yet. The past is not a good predictor of the future in these kinds of things.
Making sure we have ample oversight so that people actually look hard at what is being done and mention problems is important to our process.
Without broad oversight, the capability to make thing silently vanish should also be vanishing.
And that's bad because?
Jay.
The suitable initial group seems clear enough: every
administrator.
1000 people? That's an absurdly large group. As it is there are administrators digging up deleted articles and posting them on other websites.
This isn't about publishing deleted articles.
Not that I have any objection to something like publishing every deleted article without personal information somewhere. Might produce some welcome extra feedback about what gets deleted inappropriately.
Beyond that, the censored log should be available to everyone. Administrators often have more than enough to do and any
assistance
non-administrators can do in the way of oversight is a good thing.
No, the log should not be available to everyone. I can't see what possible good that could come from it, and the log itself could be used to reveal the very kinds of things it is intended to conceal (e.g. personal information).
It's good to have the largest practical group able to examine our actions. That increases the chance that enough people will take an interest and provide effective questioning of actions.
Removing the page isn't close to sufficient - it conceals what is perhaps the most significant part of what is being overseen: who
is
doing what, where and still concealed from most, why.
What's the danger here? What horrible thing will happen if some
edit
disappears from the history?
Nothing harmful at all will happen if all the actions are in accord with policy.
If someone uses the capability to hide edits that are uncomplimentary to them or simply make a project look bad in a news story, when the project did actually have a problem then that would be an entirely different and problematic mater. Things like "we screwed up" or "yes, that was a bad edit" aren't what this capability is for. Oversight is about making sure that the capability isn't misused in this sort of way, however much we all want to be perfect and might be tempted to try to look better than we are.
It's worth remembering that a few million pages with things not vanishing completely have not brought the encyclopedia or
Foundation
down.
Um, not yet. The past is not a good predictor of the future in
these
kinds of things.
I disagree.
Making sure we have ample oversight so that people actually look hard at what is being done and mention problems is important to
our
process.
Without broad oversight, the capability to make thing silently
vanish
should also be vanishing.
And that's bad because?
It's not bad at all. Looking hard at what we do is good. So is capabilities without oversight going away, since that needlessly introduces the scope for misuse by eliminating the checks and balances we should be striving for in all we do.
James Day
On 6/22/06, James user_jamesday@myrealbox.com wrote:
The suitable initial group seems clear enough: every
administrator.
1000 people? That's an absurdly large group. As it is there are administrators digging up deleted articles and posting them on other websites.
This isn't about publishing deleted articles.
No, it's about reliability of admins when it comes to deleted information.
Beyond that, the censored log should be available to everyone. Administrators often have more than enough to do and any
assistance
non-administrators can do in the way of oversight is a good thing.
No, the log should not be available to everyone. I can't see what possible good that could come from it, and the log itself could be used to reveal the very kinds of things it is intended to conceal (e.g. personal information).
It's good to have the largest practical group able to examine our actions. That increases the chance that enough people will take an interest and provide effective questioning of actions.
Right, and that group consists of around 20 highly trusted editors. That's the largest *practical* number. 1000 is a completely impractical number that will significantly raise the risks of doing damage.
Removing the page isn't close to sufficient - it conceals what is perhaps the most significant part of what is being overseen: who
is
doing what, where and still concealed from most, why.
What's the danger here? What horrible thing will happen if some
edit
disappears from the history?
Nothing harmful at all will happen if all the actions are in accord with policy.
And what harm will happen if the actions are not in accord with policy?
If someone uses the capability to hide edits that are uncomplimentary to them or simply make a project look bad in a news story, when the project did actually have a problem then that would be an entirely different and problematic mater.
Huh? You mean in an article about themselves? And how could they make the project look bad in a news story?
Things like "we screwed up" or "yes, that was a bad edit" aren't what this capability is for. Oversight is about making sure that the capability isn't misused in this sort of way, however much we all want to be perfect and might be tempted to try to look better than we are.
I've seen no evidence anyone has even contemplated using it that way. And why would they? It seems completely farfetched.
Jay.
On 6/21/06, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
We appear to have lose access to the Oversight logs altogether. Is there any explanation for this at all? I presume without this slight accountability measure in place the oversight privileges have also been revoked from those who have them.
Originally the log only showed who had removed an edit and where it was removed from. It did not show what was removed so it was not that good for accountability at all. It has now been changes so that it shows the edit that was deleted. This is much better for accountability because we can check up on each other. Unfortunately this means that the log itself has to be kept private. Those people with oversight can view it. No one else can.
Theresa
On 21/06/06, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/06, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
We appear to have lose access to the Oversight logs altogether. Is there any explanation for this at all? I presume without this slight accountability measure in place the oversight privileges have also been revoked from those who have them.
Originally the log only showed who had removed an edit and where it was removed from. It did not show what was removed so it was not that good for accountability at all. It has now been changes so that it shows the edit that was deleted. This is much better for accountability because we can check up on each other. Unfortunately this means that the log itself has to be kept private. Those people with oversight can view it. No one else can.
Theresa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers/oversight?limit=500 for the list of users with "Oversight" access, which are, at of this moment:
1. Brion VIBBER http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brion_VIBBER(oversight, Sysop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators) 2. Charles Matthewshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charles_Matthews(oversight, Sysop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators) 3. Dmcdevit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dmcdevit (oversight, Sysop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators) 4. Essjay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay (Bureaucrathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats, checkuser, oversight, Sysophttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators ) 5. Filiocht http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Filiocht (oversight, Sysop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators) 6. Fred Bauder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fred_Bauder(checkuser, oversight, Sysop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators) 7. Jayjg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayjg (checkuser, oversight, Sysop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators) 8. Jdforrester http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jdforrester(oversight, Sysop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators) 9. Jimbo Wales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales(developer, oversight, Steward, Sysop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators) 10. Mindspillage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage(oversight, Sysop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators) 11. Morven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Morven (checkuser, oversight, Sysophttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators ) 12. Neutrality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neutrality(oversight, Sysop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators) 13. Raul654 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654 ( Bureaucrathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats, checkuser, oversight, Sysophttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators ) 14. Sam Korn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn (checkuser, oversight, Sysophttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators ) 15. SimonP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SimonP (oversight, Sysop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators) 16. The Epopt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Epopt(checkuser, oversight, Sysop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators) 17. Theresa knott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theresa_knott(oversight, Sysop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators)
None of these were appointed in any way by the community, they just seem to have been privileges handed out to friends as individuals see fit...
Now... If no one knows what exactly was deleted, not even the oversight people themselves, how is abuse of this ever going to be detected? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-06-05/Oversig... - "For legal reasons, revisions deleted through oversight are not visible to anyone, including oversight members. The only way to retrieve such revisions is by manual restoration by a developer."
Ok, so developers can see it, but developers will not check unless there's already a claim that there may have been abuse of it - the thing is, when no one knows what's deleted, no one ever knows, not even the supposedly trusted users in Oversight. I think that probably needs to be changed. If there are certain people who cannot be trusted with information from Oversight they shouldn't have it in the first place. Either that or create a separate usergroup for "viewOversight" maybe....?
On 21/06/06, Selina . wikipediareview@gmail.com wrote:
Originally the log only showed who had removed an edit and where it was removed from. It did not show what was removed so it was not that good for accountability at all. It has now been changes so that it shows the edit that was deleted. This is much better for accountability because we can check up on each other. Unfortunately this means that the log itself has to be kept private. Those people with oversight can view it. No one else can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers/oversight?limit=500 for the list of users with "Oversight" access, which are, at of this moment:
(...)
Now... If no one knows what exactly was deleted, not even the oversight people themselves, how is abuse of this ever going to be detected?
Let's just look again at the message you're replying to:
Originally the log only showed who had removed an edit and where it was removed from. It did not show what was removed so it was not that good for accountability at all. It has now been changes so that it shows the edit that was deleted.
The system has been changed to allow it to do exactly the thing you're fretting about.
On 6/21/06, Selina . wikipediareview@gmail.com wrote:
None of these were appointed in any way by the community, they just seem to have been privileges handed out to friends as individuals see fit...
You could look at "friends" as being a nepotistic conspiracy by which cronies evilly band together to take control of what was supposed to be a public, open project. Or, you could look at it as people selecting only the Wikipedians they trust the most - as demonstrated by experience and time with the project - to give access to confidential information which could be used to hurt the project.
Pick whichever you prefer.
Steve
We are friends, but that is more the result of working together than acquiring responsibility because we are friends. Those with responsibility on Wikipedia assume responsibility through diverse paths. What we have in common is consistently putting the interests of the project before whatever personal biases or other projects we have.
Fred
On Jun 21, 2006, at 5:49 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/21/06, Selina . wikipediareview@gmail.com wrote:
None of these were appointed in any way by the community, they just seem to have been privileges handed out to friends as individuals see fit...
You could look at "friends" as being a nepotistic conspiracy by which cronies evilly band together to take control of what was supposed to be a public, open project. Or, you could look at it as people selecting only the Wikipedians they trust the most - as demonstrated by experience and time with the project - to give access to confidential information which could be used to hurt the project.
Pick whichever you prefer.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/06, Selina . wikipediareview@gmail.com wrote:
None of these were appointed in any way by the community, they just seem
to
have been privileges handed out to friends as individuals see fit...
You could look at "friends" as being a nepotistic conspiracy by which cronies evilly band together to take control of what was supposed to be a public, open project. Or, you could look at it as people selecting only the Wikipedians they trust the most - as demonstrated by experience and time with the project - to give access to confidential information which could be used to hurt the project.
I'm pretty sure Selina didn't say anything about evil crony nepotistic conspiracies, so maybe you should tone down your rhetoric.
History has shown us that when power is concentrated among the few without any formal regulation the long-term result is pernicious.
On 6/21/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure Selina didn't say anything about evil crony nepotistic conspiracies, so maybe you should tone down your rhetoric.
No one said anything about trust and confidential information either. They're just two extreme interpretations.
History has shown us that when power is concentrated among the few without any formal regulation the long-term result is pernicious.
The history of wikis? Or the history of governments? What is the "long term"? 2 years? 50? 200?
Steve
On 6/21/06, Selina . wikipediareview@gmail.com wrote:
None of these were appointed in any way by the community, they just seem to have been privileges handed out to friends as individuals see fit...
Now, I'm going to assume good faith in that you really *don't* know why this selection of people was chosen. Let's have a look. We have Jimbo (he gets most complaints, so fair enough), Brion (he could already do this, so fair enough), the 14 AC members (community appointed to a great degree) and Essjay (respected, bureaucrat, already has checkuser privileges).
Now, we cannot do this like an RFA election, as there is potentially sensitive information. Matching the Checkuser requirements seems logical to me. There's no reason why this couldn't potentially be expanded in the future. Let's see how the current team does first.
On 6/21/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Now, we cannot do this like an RFA election, as there is potentially sensitive information.
How were arbcom elected?
In any case the presence of sensitive information would be the least of your problems. The issue that the odds of the communirty passing anyone are pretty minimal would likely be the real headache.
On 6/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
How were arbcom elected?
I'm not sure. I myself was elected, and still don't quite know how.
In any case the presence of sensitive information would be the least of your problems. The issue that the odds of the communirty passing anyone are pretty minimal would likely be the real headache.
Oh aye, there's that too...
On 6/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Now, we cannot do this like an RFA election, as there is potentially sensitive information.
How were arbcom elected?
The current batch? The community selected a number of candidates, and Jimbo approved some of them.
On 6/21/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Now, we cannot do this like an RFA election, as there is potentially sensitive information.
How were arbcom elected?
The current batch? The community selected a number of candidates, and Jimbo approved some of them.
It was a retorical question (I was heavily involved in setting up the darn thing). I was trying to make the point that those who had got oversightship due to arbcomness has been aproved by the community. Admitedly in an election system which had it's final detials hashed out in the minutes leading up to midnight. Incerdentaly could we have some disscussion at [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Elections/December_2006]] so we don't have to do things that way again?
Theresa Knott wrote:
On 6/21/06, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
We appear to have lose access to the Oversight logs altogether. Is there any explanation for this at all? I presume without this slight accountability measure in place the oversight privileges have also been revoked from those who have them.
Originally the log only showed who had removed an edit and where it was removed from. It did not show what was removed so it was not that good for accountability at all. It has now been changes so that it shows the edit that was deleted. This is much better for accountability because we can check up on each other. Unfortunately this means that the log itself has to be kept private. Those people with oversight can view it. No one else can.
Then the logical step would be to reproduce the original limited version of the log for those without oversight access, surely?
HTH HAND
I'm not sure we want to create a list of targets. Also as people who have inserted private information or libelous material are likely to do it again at the same place we are creating a security hole.
Fred
On Jun 21, 2006, at 6:20 AM, Phil Boswell wrote:
Theresa Knott wrote:
On 6/21/06, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
We appear to have lose access to the Oversight logs altogether. Is there any explanation for this at all? I presume without this slight accountability measure in place the oversight privileges have also been revoked from those who have them.
Originally the log only showed who had removed an edit and where it was removed from. It did not show what was removed so it was not that good for accountability at all. It has now been changes so that it shows the edit that was deleted. This is much better for accountability because we can check up on each other. Unfortunately this means that the log itself has to be kept private. Those people with oversight can view it. No one else can.
Then the logical step would be to reproduce the original limited version of the log for those without oversight access, surely?
HTH HAND
Phil
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Oversight-log- t1822394.html#a4973157 Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No, they are still active, but we can't find the log either.
Fred
On Jun 21, 2006, at 1:57 AM, Mark Ryan wrote:
We appear to have lose access to the Oversight logs altogether. Is there any explanation for this at all? I presume without this slight accountability measure in place the oversight privileges have also been revoked from those who have them.
~Mark Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/21/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
No, they are still active, but we can't find the log either.
Fred
I don't know whether you still can't, Fred, but I can, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Oversight