Wikipedia talk:Oversight: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:45, 1 March 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oversight page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 180 days

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Requests for oversight redirects here.

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is not the place to request suppression/oversight!

Never make such a request by editing a Wikipedia page. You will need to privately contact an Oversighter to have an edit suppressed/oversighted. See the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for more information.

Revision history for m:Hiding revisions, which this page borrows heavily from.

Email additions from new users

People's thoughts would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Expanding_247_(email_additions)_to_all_namespaces?. Galobtter (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete account

Moved from Special:Permalink/1151653269

Can you please explain how can someone delete their wikipedia account and request you to remove all of their data? Kicmenamozdina (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, our software currently does not permit deletion of accounts. However, it does not hurt anything to leave accounts unused; you may simply stop using the account.

If you wish to remove your email address from your account, you can unset it at Special:ChangeEmail. If you wish to remove your userpage, please add {{Db-userreq}} to the page (including the brackets), and one of our administrators will delete the page. If you wish to rename your account, please see the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing_username. Additionally, you might qualify for the right to vanish.

If there is personal information on another page that you wish to be removed, please email the Oversight team.

Otherwise, all you have to do is stop logging into the account. I hope this answers your question, and I am sorry to hear that you have decided to stop contributing to Wikipedia. If you wish to return, you may simply begin using the account again.

If there is anything else we can help you with, please let us know. Best regards, and thank you for using Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When it is too late

I got a question? How long until it is too late to get oversight for example, you forgot log in. It happened to me once in November 2021 but I didn't know about this until a year later then I was told it was too late when I requested it? Cwater1 (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally within the last three months", from [note 2]. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. It would probably be hard to two and two (IP and User) together considering it was one time. Next time, if I accidently forget to log in and edit, then I should request oversight as soon as possible. Cwater1 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. These days IPs are rarely static, so two edits spread a year (or more) apart are very unlikely to be connected. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Redirects involving BLP privacy issues

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Redirects involving BLP privacy issues. ^user:A smart kitten_meow 21:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses

can Wikipedia delete some ip addresses on Wikipedia? 155.137.27.93 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially. Please email the Oversight Team with your request. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 3 November 2023

This edit request to User:Oversight/Emailnotice has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a line along the lines of

This address should only be used for requests to oversight content '''on the English Wikipedia'''. For other wikis, check the local oversight or suppression page.

Since it seems that some users accidentally send their requests here when it is intended for other wikis. Happy to share examples with the OS team if needed. DannyS712 (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Primefac (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All oversight blocks are indef

At the moment all oversight blocks are indefinite. In ~95% of the cases this has seemed appropriate to me. Indefinite is not infinite and in most cases the behavior is so egregious or so repeated that indefinite feels like the right way to stop disruption. Once in a while it feels like too much and sometimes I think the fact that we only do indefinite means we don't block someone, because it feels like a disproportionate response, or we let a problem get worse that a shorter block applied more quickly may have stopped. I am wondering if this practice of the OS team should be reconsidered. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this wouldn't apply to oversight blocks of IP addresses? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

GorillaWarfare is correct, OS blocks of IP addresses are normally short. Dependent on multiple factors, they can sometimes be as short as a few hours, although most will run a few days or weeks. They are preventative blocks, but the time limit recognizes the ease and frequency of IP lease turnover.
Oversight blocks weren't a thing at all until a random admin overturned an indef block made by an oversighter. The block had been made because the (long-time, popular) editor had repeatedly published material that had required suppression. The admin thought the blockee had been punished enough. The blockee then promptly republished the material that required suppression. The admin involved failed to recognize that the point of the block was preventative, not punitive.
Oversight blocks of named registered accounts *should* be indefinite. The entire purpose of these blocks is preventative. They aren't lifted until the blockee demonstrates understanding that the blockable actions were a policy violation, and the blockee also agrees not to republish that material. Some OS blocks last about as long as it takes for someone to post "Oh geez, didn't realize that was not publicly known, my apologies, won't happen again, sorry!". Others haven't been lifted ever. In fact, most of them haven't been lifted.
I can't think of a case where there would be a limited-duration OS block of a named registered account. Is there any reason to think that a blockee has understood the reason for the block and the nature of the violation, and has agreed not to repeat the OS-blockable offense? Those things don't happen on a clock, they happen when they happen, whether in a few minutes or never. A time-limited OS block just sounds punitive to me, and doesn't do anything to prevent further identical problem editing/behaviour.
Oversight blocks are rare. Very rare. With the exception of limited-duration IP blocks, they are always reviewed promptly by the OS team, and lifted if determined to be inappropriate, regardless of how much time has passed. There are almost no OS blocks that are appealed to Arbcom. Admins without access to suppression tools have no rational way to determine whether the block was appropriate. It should be noted that some of the OS blocks involve policy violations so egregious that even an ordinary admin would have blocked the offending account with the intention of it being permanent.

Hope that gives some background on *why* OS blocks of named registered accounts are always of indefinite duration (in the true meaning of the word "indefinite".) Risker (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 At the moment all oversight blocks are indefinite. In ~95% of the cases this has seemed appropriate to me. Indefinite is not infinite and in most cases the behavior is so egregious or so repeated that indefinite feels like the right way to stop disruption. Once in a while it feels like too much and sometimes I think the fact that we only do indefinite means we don't block someone, because it feels like a disproportionate response, or we let a problem get worse that a shorter block applied more quickly may have stopped. I am wondering if this practice of the OS team should be reconsidered. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 :I assume this wouldn't apply to oversight blocks of IP addresses? [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;(she/her&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 14:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
+:Some points:
+*GorillaWarfare is correct, OS blocks of IP addresses are normally short. Dependent on multiple factors, they can sometimes be as short as a few hours, although most will run a few days or weeks. They are preventative blocks, but the time limit recognizes the ease and frequency of IP lease turnover.
+*Oversight blocks weren't a thing at all until a random admin overturned an indef block made by an oversighter. The block had been made because the (long-time, popular) editor had repeatedly published material that had required suppression. The admin thought the blockee had been punished enough. The blockee then promptly republished the material that required suppression. The admin involved failed to recognize that the point of the block was preventative, not punitive.
+*Oversight blocks of named registered accounts *should* be indefinite. The entire purpose of these blocks is preventative. They aren't lifted until the blockee demonstrates understanding that the blockable actions were a policy violation, and the blockee also agrees not to republish that material. Some OS blocks last about as long as it takes for someone to post "Oh geez, didn't realize that was not publicly known, my apologies, won't happen again, sorry!". Others haven't been lifted ever.  In fact, most of them haven't been lifted.
+*I can't think of a case where there would be a limited-duration OS block of a named registered account. Is there any reason to think that a blockee has understood the reason for the block and  the nature of the violation, and has agreed not to repeat the OS-blockable offense?  Those things don't happen on a clock, they happen when they happen, whether in a few minutes or never. A time-limited OS block just sounds punitive to me, and doesn't do anything to prevent further identical problem editing/behaviour.
+*Oversight blocks are rare. Very rare. With the exception of limited-duration IP blocks, they are always reviewed promptly by the OS team, and lifted if determined to be inappropriate, regardless of how much time has passed. There are almost no OS blocks that are appealed to Arbcom. Admins without access to suppression tools have no rational way to determine whether the block was appropriate. It should be noted that some of the OS blocks involve policy violations so egregious that even an ordinary admin would have blocked the offending account with the intention of it being permanent.
+:Hope that gives some background on *why* OS blocks of named registered accounts are always of indefinite duration (in the true meaning of the word "indefinite".)  [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 15:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)