Wikipedia talk:Oversight
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oversight page. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
 | For 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 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.
| WT:OVER Archives |
|---|
The link only works for registered users with a registered email, which may misleadingly imply to a person who's been doxed that they have to make a Wikipedia account with a registered email, a tedious process, to get content suppressed. It should be changed to something more user-friendly for non-Wikipedians. PBZE (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Truly permanent deletionsEdit
Can Wikipedia take requests for permanent deletion whereby the content is fully removed from the servers and even oversight or WMF cannot retrieve it? Who would be the contact for this highest level of content removal: oversight, arbcom, or another entity? Altanner1991 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Altanner1991 there is nothing the community can do about that, as it is not supported by processes or community policies. If there is a legal issue, such as the presence of contraban, you may contact the meta:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department. — xaosflux Talk 20:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ok so unless I misunderstood, WMF can remove it from the server whereby even they cannot retrieve it. That would make sense. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Altanner1991 WMF owns the servers that host this site, so ultimately yes - they could have their tech teams delete things or even physically destroy storage devices. If contraband (such as child pornography) was involved they would likely also need to get law enforcement involved, and deal with things like purging back ups, etc - all things well beyond the scope of the local project here. — xaosflux Talk 21:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- That is very well explained, thank you so much. Altanner1991 (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Altanner1991 WMF owns the servers that host this site, so ultimately yes - they could have their tech teams delete things or even physically destroy storage devices. If contraband (such as child pornography) was involved they would likely also need to get law enforcement involved, and deal with things like purging back ups, etc - all things well beyond the scope of the local project here. — xaosflux Talk 21:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ok so unless I misunderstood, WMF can remove it from the server whereby even they cannot retrieve it. That would make sense. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
'xpunges information from any form of usual access' hard to understandEdit
Recomend change to 'deletes anything from a page and cannot be reverted without special permissions. :)
120.21.222.76 (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Protected edit requestEdit
 | This edit request to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the {{nowrap}} transclusions wrapped around the color-coded subsection dividers in § How do you contact us?. IOW, please change:
{{nowrap|'''Recommended contact methods''' that are actively monitored for new oversight requests at most times:}}
to
'''Recommended contact methods''' that are actively monitored for new oversight requests at most times:
and
{{nowrap|Available, but '''not recommended''' with urgent situations, as these contact methods aren't guaranteed to be monitored reliably or nearly as often:}}
to
Available, but '''not recommended''' with urgent situations, as these contact methods aren't guaranteed to be monitored reliably or nearly as often:
Those sentences are too long to be {{nowrap}}'d, and they are forcing the page to render far too wide. FeRDNYC (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment, the page that the editor is actually requesting to fix is Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, not Wikipedia:Oversight. I've adjusted the template accordingly. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks, PerfectSoundWhatever, I failed to notice that I was redirected here from Wikipedia Talk:Requests for oversight. (Though I did notice, and even found it odd, that the template was claiming "semi-protected" status for the page in the request... but, stupidly, didn't think to check the title and just chalked it up to a template weirdness.) FeRDNYC (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Done. Courtesy ping to Oshwah who made substantial updates to the wording in August which is when the extensive nowrapping seems at first glance to have originated. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: Please remove the
}}left behind from the line: <div style="float:center;text-align:center;border:darkgrey solid 1px;background-color:lightblue;padding:2px;margin-bottom:15px">'''Recommended contact methods''' that are actively monitored for new oversight requests at most times:}}</div>
- @Thryduulf: Please remove the
- Many thanks, PerfectSoundWhatever, I failed to notice that I was redirected here from Wikipedia Talk:Requests for oversight. (Though I did notice, and even found it odd, that the template was claiming "semi-protected" status for the page in the request... but, stupidly, didn't think to check the title and just chalked it up to a template weirdness.) FeRDNYC (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 11:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Accessibility of WP:RFO "threats of harm" link for screenreader usersEdit
Screenreader users sometimes choose to be presented with a list of links separate from the page, with only the link text leading to the URL. With that in mind, "as described here" to lead to another page looks like poor wording because of the ambiguity of "here". (Even in context, it's not immediately clear whether "here" refers to the link target or to the page the link text is embedded in.) Would there be consensus in rewording for clarity, eg by making the whole note read "Note: The suppression team does not respond to threats of harm. [[Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm|Report a threat of harm to yourself or to others]]."? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)