→Oversight question: new section |
Fluffernutter (talk | contribs) →Oversight question: r to NE Ent |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
Sorry to drag you into wiki-politics (context is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2015/Candidates/NE_Ent/Questions&oldid=693241282#Question_from_Kevin_Gorman] and my talk) but could you address claims that the oversight team would refuse to suppress an editor's a) a date of birth, or b) zip code posted onwiki without their consent? Thanks. <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 10:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
Sorry to drag you into wiki-politics (context is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2015/Candidates/NE_Ent/Questions&oldid=693241282#Question_from_Kevin_Gorman] and my talk) but could you address claims that the oversight team would refuse to suppress an editor's a) a date of birth, or b) zip code posted onwiki without their consent? Thanks. <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 10:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Hi {{u|NE Ent}}. As you of course know, we can't discuss individual oversight cases publicly, so I can't go into detail about what may or may not have been oversighted in a specific case, but I will say that I can't remember the last time we declined to oversight either a DOB or a zip code. There are of course hypothetical cases I can think of where we might not have - mostly of the "I know it's sourced in my article, but I don't *like* it!" type - but assuming a good faith oversight request and a reasonable case for it being not-already-sourced-and-public, my sense is that it would be pretty unusual for the OS team to decline such a request. However, it is also true that the majority of oversight requests are actioned by individual oversighters based on their own judgment of how that case matches the criteria, and each oversighter interprets the criteria slightly differently. So I can't say that it's ''impossible'' that such a request was declined and I didn't see it go past, but if that happened I would be very interested in having the OS team review it so that we can attempt to standardize among ourselves (and I would urge anyone concerned about such a case to ask us to do that, because if we can't even present a coherent explanation to our users about what we can/can't do, they're going to find it very difficult to know if we can help them when they need us). [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter#top|talk]]) 14:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:26, 1 December 2015
The Signpost: 18 November 2015
- Special report: ArbCom election—candidates’ opinions analysed
- In the media: Icelandic milestone; apolitical editing
- Discussion report: BASC disbanded; other developments in the discussion world
- Arbitration report: Ban Appeals Subcommittee goes up in smoke; 21 candidates running
- Featured content: Fantasia on a Theme by Jimbo Wales
- Traffic report: Darkness and light
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Tech News: 2015-48
20:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 November 2015
- News and notes: Fundraising update; FDC recommendations
- Featured content: Caves and stuff
- Traffic report: J'en ai ras le bol
- Arbitration report: Third Palestine-Israel case closes; Voting begins
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Tech News: 2015-49
16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Oversight question
Sorry to drag you into wiki-politics (context is [8] and my talk) but could you address claims that the oversight team would refuse to suppress an editor's a) a date of birth, or b) zip code posted onwiki without their consent? Thanks. NE Ent 10:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi NE Ent. As you of course know, we can't discuss individual oversight cases publicly, so I can't go into detail about what may or may not have been oversighted in a specific case, but I will say that I can't remember the last time we declined to oversight either a DOB or a zip code. There are of course hypothetical cases I can think of where we might not have - mostly of the "I know it's sourced in my article, but I don't *like* it!" type - but assuming a good faith oversight request and a reasonable case for it being not-already-sourced-and-public, my sense is that it would be pretty unusual for the OS team to decline such a request. However, it is also true that the majority of oversight requests are actioned by individual oversighters based on their own judgment of how that case matches the criteria, and each oversighter interprets the criteria slightly differently. So I can't say that it's impossible that such a request was declined and I didn't see it go past, but if that happened I would be very interested in having the OS team review it so that we can attempt to standardize among ourselves (and I would urge anyone concerned about such a case to ask us to do that, because if we can't even present a coherent explanation to our users about what we can/can't do, they're going to find it very difficult to know if we can help them when they need us). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)