Misplaced Pages

talk:Oversight: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:13, 23 October 2024 editSerial Number 54129 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,443 edits →Request copy of WMF-office protected page: cmt← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:59, 29 December 2024 edit undoPrimefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators209,068 edits →Protected edit request on 29 December 2024: Responded to edit requestTag: editProtectedHelper 
(20 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 10: Line 10:
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Oversight/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Oversight/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}

== Can we consider a formal rename of oversight to suppression (or something else)? (just a brainstorm) ==

The oversight extension has been deprecated for more than a decade, and very few people (particularly newer contributors) actually understand why the tool was named as such. A rename would be better for newer users.

A rename would entail moving this page from Project:Oversight to Project:Suppression, renaming the appropriate group roles, updating references of "oversight" to "suppressor" or "suppression team" across the project where needed, etc. It might also involve updating email addresses and mailing lists (but not discontinuing previous ones). "]" is not even defined as we use it right now; oversight means "supervision or management" and is not synonymous with "]".

Suppression might have a negative connotation, but it is also important to note that suppression is only done for material that for one reason or another creates legal liability if accessible even by administrators. And I don't think there are many other terms that accurately describe what this is doing. We could differentiate between these different levels of deletion with stuff like level I deletion and level II deletion, but then the group name would be "level II deleter" and that does not ring nicely, and that might still not have an entirely positive connotation.

Maybe one can find a better term to reflect this role that is not negative or something? I can be certain that this role only exists for legal reasons, in the same manner "checkuser" exists. So finding a term that reflects this fact would be more helpful. ] ] 00:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

:Noting for the record that this has been brought up several times before:
:*]
:*]
:*]
:*]
:<span style="font-family: Verdana;">]</span> (]) 00:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
::How about this? We can maybe combine the "checkuser" and "oversight" privileges into one "functionary" role, since both roles are tied with the handling of private information, if someone is trusted with one they are trusted with the other. A <code>functionary</code> role would have access to the IP addresses accessed by accounts, ability to redact and technically suppress information, and oversight over each other's use of these tools. I have never seen a case where one with both roles lost just one or the other. (example: ] where a former functionary lost both roles because of lapsed judgement with the "checkuser" tool). ] ] 00:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
:::We have a number of OSers who are not CU, and a ''ton'' of CU who are not OSers. Combining these roles would give access to people who have, for one reason or another, indicated they neither want nor need the other role. ] (]) 07:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
::::The two roles require different skill sets and not everybody has both. I am an OSer without CU, I don't have the technical skills to make use of the CU tool and I have little to no interest in learning them. So either people like me would have access to CU without meeting the usage requirements (pointless, arguably potentially harmful), I'd lose access to the OS tool because I didn't use CU often enough (not the greatest loss to the team, but still a loss) or I'd be forced to make bad use of the CU tool (with great potential for harm). ] (]) 11:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
:Suppression is the technical term and Oversight the common name for the same process. The words can continue to coexist, in the same way we call someone with the ] privilege an admin. However, you make a good point that their duty is to perform limited and welcome suppression rather than general management. It's unfortunate that for reasons verging on marketing and political correctness we need (rather ironically) to suppress the S word. Perhaps we can find a better term which describes the role more accurately without offending anyone. ] (]) 09:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
::It might be the same reason why we moved from "abuse filter" to "edit filter" even though many contributors including me still use AF. It is called that because its primary purpose is to catch potential vandalism, LTA, and etc. but not all edits the filter flags are "harmful".
::The term that might be better is just "level II revision deletion" or something similar because revision deletion already removes inappropriate material from public view, and for most cases that is enough. If we need to go a step further (level I to level II) then that is what "suppress" would be. ] ] 16:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
:{{tpq|suppression is only done for material that for one reason or another creates legal liability if accessible even by administrators}} this is not correct. The policy section of this page lists the situations where we suppress material, and privacy reasons are far more common than legal ones (both in terms of criteria and in terms of how often they are applied). ] (]) 10:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
::Once again, there are legal implications with having personal information visible to everyone. Most don't realize that personal information here is visible to everyone forever even if later removed. Which was the purpose of the oversight and later suppression tools. Other wikis (particularly commercial wikis) have other obligations like GDPR and when a user "vanishes" (like I have seen on Fandom), the username must be suppressed in all relevant logs for compliance, and any pages where personal information is present must be removed. It's called the ] for a reason. ] ] 16:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
*Just for the record, the action is formally called "hiding", not suppression, in our logs. I'd rather be called a hider than a suppressor. Both of them suck. In some languages, the local equivalent of "suppressor" doesn't have the Orwellian impact as it does in English, but I know for a fact (having met some colleagues from other languages) that they're none too fond of the implications of the name. The reality is that we aren't suppressing anything in any classic meaning of the term; we're preventing access to certain elements of information. We can't suppress the information in the sense that it is impossible for anyone to know the information was ever there. (Incidentally that's what the old oversight tool did, but very clearly the current suppression tools do *not* do.) So if someone has the strong urge to get into the semantics of the whole thing, they should start by insisting on the correct name of the activity, and then working their way down. I could almost accept a name like "access restrictor". ] (]) 16:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
*:Maybe what might be better is "content administrator" and "account administrator" for OS/CU. Content administrator suggests that the user administers content decisions. In which case then we could rename "administrator" to "moderator" as that is essentially what the administrator tools allow. It would also distinguish between "system administrator" and "database administrator" which entail different roles and responsibilities. ] ] 21:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
*::Administrators are far more "content administrators" than they are "system administrators" or "sysops"; oversighters make far fewer and much less wide-ranging decisions about content than regular admins do. The only "account administration" that checkusers do is blocking and unblocking - i.e. what administrators do. ] (]) 03:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
{{unindent}}
How about this for the role namings and policy namings:
* Functionaries (checkuser access) (called ])
* Functionaries (suppress tool access) (called ])
It may get a bit redundant if one has both but it resolves this historic happenstance and inaccurate description by using the same name to refer to both checkusers and oversighters. ] ] 23:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

:I'm struggling to understand what the benefit of that change would be? Also note that there are functionaries without either tool. ] (]) 09:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
::{{talk quote inline|There are functionaries without either tool}} aren't functionaries essentially users entrusted by both the community (or ArbCom) and the WMF to handle personal data? There could be a right called "arbcom" that lists Arbitration Commitee members, which would be a cosmetic-ish role. ] ] 19:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
:::All functionaries are entrusted to handle personal data, but not all are or were arbitrators. ] notes that there are several Functionaries who are former oversighters and/or checkusers but not former arbitrators, ] for example. They remain subscribed to list so they can offer their perspectives and advice when that would be beneficial, even though they don't handle personal data on a day-to-day basis. However this isn't really relevant to my question, which is why would "Functionaries (checkuser access)" and "Functionaries (suppress tool access)" be improvements over the status quo? ] (]) 13:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Because it distinguishes the technical role that gives the tool from the actual tools itself. It is the same reason we call administrators "administrators" rather than administrators, say, "deletors", even though they technically can delete. The same thing could be done for "rollback" and other roles. Any (insert name of tool)-er is one who (insert names of tool)-s, but it does not mean that every person with access to (insert name of tool) is a (insert name of tool)-er. Saying a person has "access" is much less technical, in the same manner that one has access to a vacuum or access to a pressure washer. ] ] 17:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::We already have "oversighter" and "checkuser"? What benefits does changing these bring? ] (]) 18:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::Checkuser is unambiguously descriptive: one who checks user details such as IP address that shouldn't be public. ] has several meanings, only the last of which is relevant. It's a term of art that few non-Wikipedians would guess correctly. ] (]) 21:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::But why is that a problem? And why is "Functionaries (suppress tool access)" better, given that there are several meanings of "]", none of which are a great match for what "suppression" means on Misplaced Pages (sense 4 is the closest).
:::::::Consider also more prominent roles like "bureaucrat", "steward", and "extended-confirmed" whose names are wholly terms of art that few non-Wikipedians would guess correctly. ] (]) 23:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

== Should there be instructions in the page to contact the Wayback Machine to ask them to remove oversighted content? ==

Oftentimes, oversighted content gets picked up by the Wayback Machine before it is removed. They will remove PII on request. Some Misplaced Pages users, especially new users, are unaware about the Wayback Machine. Could there be a reminder added to the page to check if the content was archived in the Wayback Machine, and contact them to remove it? ] (]) 08:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

:That's not our site, so not by name. But maybe something generic in the notes like:
:*The oversight process described above is specific for the English Misplaced Pages, for assistance on another Wikimedia project, please contact ] directly. For assistance with content hosted on external ] or ] you would need to contact the external site administrators.
:? — ] <sup>]</sup> 10:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


== Protected edit request on 13 September 2024 == == Protected edit request on 13 September 2024 ==
Line 79: Line 29:


== Request copy of WMF-office protected page == == Request copy of WMF-office protected page ==
{{atop|status=asked and answered|result=I'm closing this as the issue has been appropriately adressed, more than once. Nobody on the oversight team is going to provide a copy, and Bluerasberry seems to have accepted that and moved on a few days ago. Volunteers, up to and including ] and even ] are in no way empowered to override office actions. ] ] 19:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)}}
I am referred here from ]. I am referred here from ].


Line 98: Line 49:
:::::Thanks, I wasn't aware that you are an oversighter. Congratulations on the appointment. ] (]) 13:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC) :::::Thanks, I wasn't aware that you are an oversighter. Congratulations on the appointment. ] (]) 13:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Please note that the OS blocks will be taken over by the Arbitration Committee, thus limiting the options to appeal. ]'']'' 14:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC) ::::::Please note that the OS blocks will be taken over by the Arbitration Committee, thus limiting the options to appeal. ]'']'' 14:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I never said anything about summarising, for what it's worth. ''The Signpost'' has (for better or worse) a history of toeing the line when it comes to posting things they shouldn't (i.e. suppressible information). The WMF deleted the page for a reason, and suppressed the content, and until they say something otherwise we should probably go along with them (they have lawyers who are paid to make these calls). ] (]) 10:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Reply|Primefac}} please excuse my ignorance in this rarified air but no better way to learn other than to ask... What are the relevant policies and guidelines you are referring to? ] (]) 17:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Since the situation might be a little unclear with oversight talked of here, but a "Do not discuss per Primefac" elsewhere, a ''better'' way to learn might be to simply add:
:::::{{cite encyclopedia|author=Misplaced Pages contributors|title=''Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation''|publisher=Misplaced Pages, The 💕|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation|url-status=fucked}}
::::and see what happens. Oversight? Block? Remove everywhere. Remove from some places? What does "do not discuss per Primefac" mean?](]) 18:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Maybe premature, but {{u|Bluerasberry}} it looks like may include a ] to the content, which i'm pretty sure is under some kind of ] license within the article at ''your'' discretion. ](]) 19:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::We are not pretending the page never existed, nor are we pretending that we cannot talk about it, so the hyperbole is a little much. My comment was primarily because of past issues that the Signpost has had regarding deleted/suppressed information. ] (]) 10:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, neglected to include a . {{u|Serial Number 54129}}, why muddy the waters this way? Just say: "''I'' don't think it should be discussed". ](]) 11:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Please see ] and the ] from 2019. Please also desist from casting WP:ASPERSIONS. ]'']'' 12:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::What aspersion? I thought the situation was pretty clear, don't repost content and don't do stupid ] stuff, but don't walk on eggshells either. You said something completely different, invoking ''someone else's'' name to do it. When i tried to figure out what "Do not discuss per Primefac" means i saw this and talk of blocks an arbcom. Hence, "muddying the waters". {{u|Primefac}}, I do think posting fair use size quotes from the article is a fair question, if there is a reason to do it. But maybe you can't answer without knowing the reason first. ](]) 12:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::] and the ] from 2019. ] (]) 10:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I can only imagine that, by suppressing the content even from administrators' view, the WMF intended to limit the readership as far as possible. Reproducing it without their agreement would be somewhere between unwise and foolhardy. And, contrary to popular opinion, the Signpost is not exempt from the policies that govern the rest of Misplaced Pages. ] &#124; ] 17:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'm almost 100% certain that the WMF and fellow travel's intent is to expand readership. ](]) 17:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The intent of the WMF suppressing the page was explicitly to comply with a court order on the basis that this was the optimum long-term legal strategy. You seem to be arguing that their goal was actually ] via a ], if so that's an extraordinary claim that absolutely requires evidence before acting upon it. ] (]) 17:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::No, but i'm saying "widely accessible" and ] should be remembered and "limit the readership" is a pretty strange thing to say. No one can revoke the license on the content. There are some good reasons for editors to '''''read''''' that content. And if '''anyone''' has a problem with a ] and has some stake here&mdash;'''''they''''' are probably perfectly capable of telling me. Not those imagining things. ](]) 17:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|HJ Mitchell}}, think about , the ] of the project, the ''people'' you are talking about with 'WMF', and the "fellow travelers" who were probably involved in advising. Do you think any of these people would try or even think it is their business to decide what other people '''''read'''''? {{u|Primefac}} obviously saw the link and didn't have a problem with it. WP:OFFICE hasn't said anything or done anything. What are your imaginings which make it a "very bad idea" and who am i flouting exactly? ](]) 17:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::How about thinking of the very real potential for the world's most populous country to block Wikimedia projects, or the potential harm to the thousands of editors in that country? ]: this article can easily be written once the case is over. There is a long history of discretion when the potential for harm to individuals or the project is clear. Don't kid yourself. The ''Signpost'' can write an article without giving a link to any hypothetical archived copy. ] (]) 17:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Precisely as Risker says. The WMF has taken an extraordinary, interim, action to de-escalate the situation. I'm almost certain the article will be back sooner or later but the WMF needs to show willing so that the court case doesn't get caught up on whether there should be an article about the court case and can move on to the underlying issue. In the meantime, fanning the flames just because we can is unlikely to accomplish much. I suspect editors' attitudes would be different if this dispute were taking place in the United States and not India. ] &#124; ] 18:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Don't kid ''yourself''. What {{u|Bluerasberry}} wants to write is up to him and {{u|JPxG}}. If someone who matters here wanted to say shut the fuck up, publicly or i've got email enabled, even without a reason that's fine. If anyone else gave a good reason to say shut the fuck up i'm waiting to hear it. Haven't done any ] crap. Someone requested the content i provided a link. Someone tried to muddy the waters i tried to clarify. Are ]s ? I had reasons to post them and sure as shit haven't heard reasons against. ](]) 18:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Naturally, since you have not been listening. Perhaps doing so is an abhorence, I don't know, but I assure you you it pays dividends. You may also desist from colourful language. Cheers! ]'']'' 18:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{tpq|someone who matters here}} I'm not sure who you are thinking of by using that term given that multiple oversighters and arbitrators have repeatedly answered your question. Other people can indeed write what they want, but their choices are not free of consequences. In the best case scenario the consequences will be minor and limited to them only, in a worst case scenario the physical safety of editors in India and/or the ability of every person in India to access Misplaced Pages may be affected. It is that serious. ] (]) 19:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

*You should submit your request to: {{nospam|legal|wikimedia.org}} — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC) *You should submit your request to: {{nospam|legal|wikimedia.org}} — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
{{abottom}}

==Requested Edit==
{{Edit fully-protected|Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight|answered=yes}}
The link at "Misplaced Pages has a strict privacy policy that..." is outdated, please change the old link (https://meta.wikimedia.org/Privacy_policy) to the new link at is https://foundation.wikimedia.org/Policy:Privacy_policy ] (]) 22:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Rewriting request to be more to the standard, hold on. ] (]) 22:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}} -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

== Categories related to Oversight ==

Noting that there is a category for oversighters. Since this information is already available under ], I have nominated the category for deletion ]. There have been a few other oversight-related categories created that oversighters and the broad community may wish to review. ] (]) 04:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC) <small> Revised ] (]) 04:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC) </small>

== Protected edit request on 29 December 2024 ==

{{edit fully-protected|Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight|answered=yes}}
{{StringDiff|<nowiki>style=margin-left:20px</nowiki>|<nowiki>style=margin-left:1px</nowiki>}}

This is done essentially four times, for all the methods of contacting Oversight. The boxes currently display off the bordered area, this will fix the boxes to show inside of the bordered area. To easily copy paste, I've placed the already-fixed version at ], just copy everything below the line and paste into RfO. ] <sup>(]) </sup> 06:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EP --> ] (]) 06:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:59, 29 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oversight page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
CautionFor the fastest way to request oversight, send an email to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org; registered editors may use wikimail by CLICKING HERE.
To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for oversight redirects here.
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. 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.
WarningThis is not the place to request suppression/oversight! Never make such a request by editing a Misplaced Pages page. You will need to privately contact an Oversighter to have an edit suppressed/oversighted. See the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight for more information.Warning

Protected edit request on 13 September 2024

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

Please move the documentation to a standard subpage so that it can be edited. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Template:Oversight email/doc. — xaosflux 12:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Revision deletion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Revision deletion#Revdel and the filter. QwertyForest (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

QwertyForest, I assume this is the #Revdel and the filter section? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Only just realised that I forgot to specify. I'll edit the top message to make it more clear. QwertyForest (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested edit

This edit request to Misplaced Pages:request for oversight has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please re-apply the changes in (also {{self trout}} for not realizing that the page was fully-protected). Sohom (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Request copy of WMF-office protected page

ASKED AND ANSWERED I'm closing this as the issue has been appropriately adressed, more than once. Nobody on the oversight team is going to provide a copy, and Bluerasberry seems to have accepted that and moved on a few days ago. Volunteers, up to and including functionaries and even arbitrators are in no way empowered to override office actions. Just Step Sideways 19:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am referred here from Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_copy_of_WMF-office_protected_page.

Hello, I am a journalist with The Signpost.

Is anyone here able to give me the last good version of Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation? WMF legal just put a WP:BLACKLOCK on the page.

Here is how I plan to use the text:

  1. To develop journalism for The Signpost
  2. To share privately with a few high-level, off-wiki commentators from whom Signpost is asking for journalistic comment

The Signpost is not under any journalistic restriction by WMF Legal or otherwise. If that situation changes then there would be notice at Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Newsroom.

Please email to lanerasberry@gmail.com. Alternatively, getting a clear response that no, Misplaced Pages Oversighters will not do this, will be helpful. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I have an answer elsewhere that no one here is allowed to share. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_copy_of_WMF-office_protected_page. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that The Signpost is still subject to the same rules and guidelines as the rest of the project - please do not repost content from the deleted page on Misplaced Pages or it will be deleted and suppressed as well. Primefac (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
If anybody chooses to "repost" parts of the deleted page — including by summarizing it — at pages concerning articles on defamation in India, internet censorship in India, etc., will you oversight it? If so, do you speak for yourself or is that the view of a majority of the oversighters? As far as I see, Legal has nowhere asked you to go about scrubbing all mentions of the litigation; neither has the community. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Oversighting is often backed with blocks, which is a good thing. SerialNumber54129 13:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't aware that you are an oversighter. Congratulations on the appointment. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Please note that the OS blocks will be taken over by the Arbitration Committee, thus limiting the options to appeal. SerialNumber54129 14:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I never said anything about summarising, for what it's worth. The Signpost has (for better or worse) a history of toeing the line when it comes to posting things they shouldn't (i.e. suppressible information). The WMF deleted the page for a reason, and suppressed the content, and until they say something otherwise we should probably go along with them (they have lawyers who are paid to make these calls). Primefac (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
@Primefac: please excuse my ignorance in this rarified air but no better way to learn other than to ask... What are the relevant policies and guidelines you are referring to? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Since the situation might be a little unclear with oversight talked of here, but a "Do not discuss per Primefac" elsewhere, a better way to learn might be to simply add:
Misplaced Pages contributors. Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. Misplaced Pages, The 💕. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |author= has generic name (help); Invalid |url-status=fucked (help)
and see what happens. Oversight? Block? Remove everywhere. Remove from some places? What does "do not discuss per Primefac" mean?fiveby(zero) 18:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Maybe premature, but Bluerasberry it looks like may include a URL to the content, which i'm pretty sure is under some kind of Copyleft license within the article at your discretion. fiveby(zero) 19:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
We are not pretending the page never existed, nor are we pretending that we cannot talk about it, so the hyperbole is a little much. My comment was primarily because of past issues that the Signpost has had regarding deleted/suppressed information. Primefac (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, neglected to include a diff. Serial Number 54129, why muddy the waters this way? Just say: "I don't think it should be discussed". fiveby(zero) 11:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Please see Misplaced Pages:Office actions and the ArbCom case about them from 2019. Please also desist from casting WP:ASPERSIONS. SerialNumber54129 12:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
What aspersion? I thought the situation was pretty clear, don't repost content and don't do stupid WP:BEANS stuff, but don't walk on eggshells either. You said something completely different, invoking someone else's name to do it. When i tried to figure out what "Do not discuss per Primefac" means i saw this and talk of blocks an arbcom. Hence, "muddying the waters". Primefac, I do think posting fair use size quotes from the article is a fair question, if there is a reason to do it. But maybe you can't answer without knowing the reason first. fiveby(zero) 12:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Office actions and the ArbCom case about them from 2019. Primefac (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I can only imagine that, by suppressing the content even from administrators' view, the WMF intended to limit the readership as far as possible. Reproducing it without their agreement would be somewhere between unwise and foolhardy. And, contrary to popular opinion, the Signpost is not exempt from the policies that govern the rest of Misplaced Pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm almost 100% certain that the WMF and fellow travel's intent is to expand readership. fiveby(zero) 17:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
The intent of the WMF suppressing the page was explicitly to comply with a court order on the basis that this was the optimum long-term legal strategy. You seem to be arguing that their goal was actually malicious compliance via a Streisand effect, if so that's an extraordinary claim that absolutely requires evidence before acting upon it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
No, but i'm saying "widely accessible" and Copyleft should be remembered and "limit the readership" is a pretty strange thing to say. No one can revoke the license on the content. There are some good reasons for editors to read that content. And if anyone has a problem with a URL and has some stake here—they are probably perfectly capable of telling me. Not those imagining things. fiveby(zero) 17:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell, think about this, the purpose of the project, the people you are talking about with 'WMF', and the "fellow travelers" who were probably involved in advising. Do you think any of these people would try or even think it is their business to decide what other people read? Primefac obviously saw the link and didn't have a problem with it. WP:OFFICE hasn't said anything or done anything. What are your imaginings which make it a "very bad idea" and who am i flouting exactly? fiveby(zero) 17:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
How about thinking of the very real potential for the world's most populous country to block Wikimedia projects, or the potential harm to the thousands of editors in that country? There is no deadline: this article can easily be written once the case is over. There is a long history of discretion when the potential for harm to individuals or the project is clear. Don't kid yourself. The Signpost can write an article without giving a link to any hypothetical archived copy. Risker (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Precisely as Risker says. The WMF has taken an extraordinary, interim, action to de-escalate the situation. I'm almost certain the article will be back sooner or later but the WMF needs to show willing so that the court case doesn't get caught up on whether there should be an article about the court case and can move on to the underlying issue. In the meantime, fanning the flames just because we can is unlikely to accomplish much. I suspect editors' attitudes would be different if this dispute were taking place in the United States and not India. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Don't kid yourself. What Bluerasberry wants to write is up to him and JPxG. If someone who matters here wanted to say shut the fuck up, publicly or i've got email enabled, even without a reason that's fine. If anyone else gave a good reason to say shut the fuck up i'm waiting to hear it. Haven't done any WP:BEANS crap. Someone requested the content i provided a link. Someone tried to muddy the waters i tried to clarify. Are WP:URLs reasonable? I had reasons to post them and sure as shit haven't heard reasons against. fiveby(zero) 18:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Naturally, since you have not been listening. Perhaps doing so is an abhorence, I don't know, but I assure you you it pays dividends. You may also desist from colourful language. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 18:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
someone who matters here I'm not sure who you are thinking of by using that term given that multiple oversighters and arbitrators have repeatedly answered your question. Other people can indeed write what they want, but their choices are not free of consequences. In the best case scenario the consequences will be minor and limited to them only, in a worst case scenario the physical safety of editors in India and/or the ability of every person in India to access Misplaced Pages may be affected. It is that serious. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested Edit

This edit request to Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The link at "Misplaced Pages has a strict privacy policy that..." is outdated, please change the old link (https://meta.wikimedia.org/Privacy_policy) to the new link at is https://foundation.wikimedia.org/Policy:Privacy_policy Thx56 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Rewriting request to be more to the standard, hold on. Thx56 (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz 22:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories related to Oversight

Noting that there is a category for oversighters. Since this information is already available under Special:Users, I have nominated the category for deletion here. There have been a few other oversight-related categories created that oversighters and the broad community may wish to review. Risker (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC) Revised Risker (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 December 2024

This edit request to Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
−style=margin-left:20px+style=margin-left:1px

This is done essentially four times, for all the methods of contacting Oversight. The boxes currently display off the bordered area, this will fix the boxes to show inside of the bordered area. To easily copy paste, I've placed the already-fixed version at User:EggRoll97/sandbox, just copy everything below the line and paste into RfO. EggRoll97 06:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)