[WikiEN-l] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
Not sure what's going on in the edit history of [[Sam Walton]]. There are a number of grey crossed out links. At first I thought it might be a new way of displaying deleted edits but they still appear after I log out, and deleted edits on other articles still appear in the normal fashion. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
Those edits have been oversighted. More information on oversight can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight 2010/2/24 Rob gamali...@gmail.com Not sure what's going on in the edit history of [[Sam Walton]]. There are a number of grey crossed out links. At first I thought it might be a new way of displaying deleted edits but they still appear after I log out, and deleted edits on other articles still appear in the normal fashion. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Kanon kanon...@gmail.com wrote: Those edits have been oversighted. More information on oversight can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight How odd. As far as I recall, there wasn't anything in those edits except simple vandalism and reverts of said vandalism. Thanks for clearing up my confusion. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
On 24 February 2010 12:54, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Kanon kanon...@gmail.com wrote: Those edits have been oversighted. More information on oversight can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight How odd. As far as I recall, there wasn't anything in those edits except simple vandalism and reverts of said vandalism. Thanks for clearing up my confusion. As an oversighter, I can review these edits, and I can tell you that, while some may consider it simple vandalism, the edits contained potentially libelous information about a person or persons that is unsuitable for public consumption. The suppressions met the criteria for removal from view to everyone, including administrators. Such edits are now more routinely being suppressed because (a) we have the technical ability to do so without creating problems in the database and (b) there is greater sensitivity to the potential for serious harm for potentially libelous information to remain accessible. There is a significant difference between the trash-talking one frequently sees (particularly in regard to living persons) such as X is a f***ing a**hole, and a blatant unsourced allegation of wrongdoing by the article`s subject such as X murdered his second wife``; the former would simply be reverted, while the latter qualifies for suppression. Risker ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Such edits are now more routinely being suppressed because (a) we have the technical ability to do so without creating problems in the database and (b) there is greater sensitivity to the potential for serious harm for potentially libelous information to remain accessible. There is a significant difference between the trash-talking one frequently sees (particularly in regard to living persons) such as X is a f***ing a**hole, and a blatant unsourced allegation of wrongdoing by the article`s subject such as X murdered his second wife``; the former would simply be reverted, while the latter qualifies for suppression. Just out of curiosity, a hardy perennial bit of vandalism is putting is gay into the biog of a heterosexual person. Would that be classed as normal vandalism or would that preferably invoke an oversighting? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: As an oversighter, I can review these edits, and I can tell you that, while some may consider it simple vandalism, the edits contained potentially libelous information about a person or persons that is unsuitable for public consumption. The suppressions met the criteria for removal from view to everyone, including administrators. For the record, I don't object to the removal of these edits, either in principle or in this particular practice. I don't recall anything extraordinarily problematic, but without the ability to review said edits, my memory isn't enough to base any sort of objection upon. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
Incidentally, if the oversighted edits concerned a certain gentleman and his alleged predilection for oral copulation, then that vandal has returned to the article. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
On 24 Feb 2010, at 18:15, Risker wrote: As an oversighter, I can review these edits, and I can tell you that, while some may consider it simple vandalism, the edits contained potentially libelous information about a person or persons that is unsuitable for public consumption. The suppressions met the criteria for removal from view to everyone, including administrators. Such edits are now more routinely being suppressed because (a) we have the technical ability to do so without creating problems in the database and (b) there is greater sensitivity to the potential for serious harm for potentially libelous information to remain accessible. There is a significant difference between the trash-talking one frequently sees (particularly in regard to living persons) such as X is a f***ing a**hole, and a blatant unsourced allegation of wrongdoing by the article`s subject such as X murdered his second wife``; the former would simply be reverted, while the latter qualifies for suppression. I don't see the need for this. Can't we simply delete it as per normal, rather than oversighting? Do we not trust the administrators? Do we really need an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of them for this sort of thing? I can see the need for oversight when there is truly problematic and confidential information that is posted, but this example does not meet my standards for that (unless lawyers were involved). (Disclaimer: I am an admin on en.wp.) User:Mike_Peel ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Grey crossed out links in edit history (or: did I miss another software update?)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: I don't see the need for this. Can't we simply delete it as per normal, rather than oversighting? Do we not trust the administrators? Do we really need an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of them for this sort of thing? I can see the need for oversight when there is truly problematic and confidential information that is posted, but this example does not meet my standards for that (unless lawyers were involved). Might be more usefully discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Oversight Some of the other discussions there might interest you as well. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
