Talk:Oversight policy/Archives/2016
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Oversight and IP adress
Should oversighter hide the IP adress of unregistered users who ask for their IP to be masked? Durifon (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Discrepancy with English Wikipedia
At Oversight policy#English Wikipedia there are 51 names listed, but at en:Special:ListUsers/oversight there are 49 people listed. The former has three names not in the latter: Alison; Beeblebrox; and Seraphimblade, all of which gave up (or otherwise lost) the oversight right during 2016. That reduces it from 51 to 48 - the discrepancy between that and my 49 is that Jimbo Wales is not listed here, although he does have the oversighter right. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 18:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- The list is up-to-date at Oversight policy/Requests for oversight, which is then transcluded onto the main page. I'll try a null edit to see if that fixes it. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed. Turns out you need to mark the subpage for translation again, or else it doesn't update the en version. I hate the translate extension... Edit: just removed Seraphimblade as well. Should be all good now. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 19:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)- It's a very logical behaviour since what's not marked translatable for all language can't be seen as valid for the English version either. --Vogone (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed. Turns out you need to mark the subpage for translation again, or else it doesn't update the en version. I hate the translate extension... Edit: just removed Seraphimblade as well. Should be all good now. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Ombudsman
I've noticed that the ombudsman were not listed in this policy despite having the technical ability to view over sighted information. Would it be okay to make a change including them? The policy says community consensus is needed prior to a change so here I am seeking consensus. Cameron11598 (Converse) 09:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Added. No consensus needed to reflect reality, only to change existing practice :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Ajraddatz: added not sure my wording was the best but it can be twiddled by anyone else :D Cameron11598 (Converse) 10:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, if we add ombudsmen, we also need to list stewards as users with restricted access. They have exactly the same "passive" view-only permission unless they add themselves to the local OS group. --Vogone (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I had added the info to the "everywhere" section of the requests for oversight subpage. Do we need it in the lead part as well? – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, if we add ombudsmen, we also need to list stewards as users with restricted access. They have exactly the same "passive" view-only permission unless they add themselves to the local OS group. --Vogone (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Ajraddatz: added not sure my wording was the best but it can be twiddled by anyone else :D Cameron11598 (Converse) 10:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)