http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight
Hello,
It seems I have entirely missed the whole discussion over this new tool. I discovered the tool just today and I was wondering :
* how did the current editors with access to this tool got it ? (which process to get that new status). Are the people only from the arbcom ? Or are they accepted by the arbcom ?
* what is the procedure followed in case of abusive use of the tool ?
Ant
Anthere wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight
Hello,
It seems I have entirely missed the whole discussion over this new tool. I discovered the tool just today and I was wondering :
- how did the current editors with access to this tool got it ? (which
process to get that new status). Are the people only from the arbcom ? Or are they accepted by the arbcom ?
I gave it to myself since I was already doing that manually before I wrote the tool to assist me.
If anyone else has it, that's a mystery to me. Check the steward log?
- what is the procedure followed in case of abusive use of the tool ?
Extreme bannination.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Anthere wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight
Hello,
It seems I have entirely missed the whole discussion over this new tool. I discovered the tool just today and I was wondering :
- how did the current editors with access to this tool got it ? (which
process to get that new status). Are the people only from the arbcom ? Or are they accepted by the arbcom ?
I gave it to myself since I was already doing that manually before I wrote the tool to assist me.
If anyone else has it, that's a mystery to me. Check the steward log?
- what is the procedure followed in case of abusive use of the tool ?
Extreme bannination.
How can evidence of misuse be gathered ?
Ant
Brion Vibber wrote:
Anthere wrote:
- what is the procedure followed in case of abusive use of the tool ?
Extreme bannination.
How can evidence of misuse be gathered ?
If alerted, a database admin can look in the hidden table.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion, could not it be possible that at least all those with oversight actually *see* the deleted revisions ?
I understood this was a temp hack. Would it be possible to make hidden version visible to oversight people ?
Ant
I think a straw poll would've being better to see if this should exist. Also, there should be a Request for Oversight Privelages page.
On 6/11/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Anthere wrote:
- what is the procedure followed in case of abusive use of the tool ?
Extreme bannination.
How can evidence of misuse be gathered ?
If alerted, a database admin can look in the hidden table.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion, could not it be possible that at least all those with oversight actually *see* the deleted revisions ?
I understood this was a temp hack. Would it be possible to make hidden version visible to oversight people ?
Ant
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/11/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I think a straw poll would've being better to see if this should exist.
I don't. Deletion of individual revisions is needed (not as if admins cant do it anyway it just takes time and is impracticle on pages with large histories).
Also, there should be a Request for Oversight Privelages page.
Suggested that on IRC a while back. Responce was someone what negtive. In any case it isn't as if anyone could get a request past the community
Joe Anderson wrote: [fixed top-posting, again]
On 6/11/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Anthere wrote:
- what is the procedure followed in case of abusive use of the tool ?
Extreme bannination.
How can evidence of misuse be gathered ?
If alerted, a database admin can look in the hidden table.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion, could not it be possible that at least all those with oversight actually *see* the deleted revisions ?
I understood this was a temp hack. Would it be possible to make hidden version visible to oversight people ?
I think a straw poll would've being better to see if this should exist.
No. The idea is that we trust the oversight people enough that if something sensitive needs deleting, they can delete it; we don't trust them enough to see what the other people with the ability have been deleting. The seperation of knowledge is a Good Thing. Anyway, hasn't anyone ever told you that Polls are Evil? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Polls_are_evil
Also, there should be a Request for Oversight Privelages page.
Sure. How about we make a "request for permission to degauss the servers" page while we're at it?
Anthere wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Anthere wrote:
- what is the procedure followed in case of abusive use of the tool ?
Extreme bannination.
How can evidence of misuse be gathered ?
If alerted, a database admin can look in the hidden table.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion, could not it be possible that at least all those with oversight actually *see* the deleted revisions ?
Likely not, as that would defeat the purpose.
I understood this was a temp hack. Would it be possible to make hidden version visible to oversight people ?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 6/11/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Brion, could not it be possible that at least all those with oversight actually *see* the deleted revisions ?
Likely not, as that would defeat the purpose.
How so? We have over 900 admins on en.wp. There are 17 users with the oversight bit. Hiding the information in question from _virtually_ everyone except for 1-2% of admins may be sufficient in order to prevent leaks of personal information.
Other possible safeguards: - a certain number of oversight members is _notified_ whenever an oversight change has to be made. - a certain number of oversight members have to _approve_ an oversight change before it is made.
Erik
On 6/10/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight
Hello,
It seems I have entirely missed the whole discussion over this new tool. I discovered the tool just today and I was wondering :
- how did the current editors with access to this tool got it ? (which
process to get that new status). Are the people only from the arbcom ? Or are they accepted by the arbcom ?
Mixture of Devs and arbcom. Arcom would have had a hard time getting elected if they were not trusted and devs could already do this
It is needed to allow us to remove person information from page histories without hammering the servers.
geni wrote:
On 6/10/06, Anthere Anthere9-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oversight
Hello,
It seems I have entirely missed the whole discussion over this new tool. I discovered the tool just today and I was wondering :
- how did the current editors with access to this tool got it ? (which
process to get that new status). Are the people only from the arbcom ? Or are they accepted by the arbcom ?
Mixture of Devs and arbcom. Arcom would have had a hard time getting elected if they were not trusted and devs could already do this
It is needed to allow us to remove person information from page histories without hammering the servers.
okay
I found this one : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#Oversight_rights_for...
It seems to imply others than arbcom could have the access, but this would be granted by arbcom. I suppose it would be similar ruling than for the checkuser access.
ant
On 6/11/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
okay
I found this one : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#Oversight_rights_for...
It seems to imply others than arbcom could have the access, but this would be granted by arbcom. I suppose it would be similar ruling than for the checkuser access.
ant
Nothing to stop arbcom saying that they think person X should have these rights. Wether it should be cleared with the wikipedia comunity (read vetoed have you seen how tough it is to make even buracrat on en.wikipedidia?) and what the devs think (since they are the people who would have to do any cleanup they should have the final say) would be other issues.
On 6/11/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
- how did the current editors with access to this tool got it ? (which
process to get that new status). Are the people only from the arbcom ? Or are they accepted by the arbcom ?
The current ArbCom has it, Jimbo has it, Brion has it (as a developer) and Essjay has it (the ArbCom gave it to him).
This Signpost article explains it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-06-05/Oversig...
There is also a log, although it doesn't indicate much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/oversight