Wikispecies

Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf

< Wikispecies:Oversighters‎ | Requests
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Result: This nomination failed to garner at least 25 support votes as per policy for obtaining access. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf (talk · contribs · block · all projects)

Per our other Oversighter request, we must have at least two members with this advanced user right. I am nominating myself, Koavf (talk • contribs • block log • all projects) and hope that you'll see me as a fit option to view our deleted entries. Per m:Oversight policy, "Local oversighters should generally handle local oversighting, when they're available" and this would be a useful step in Wikispecies being a mature and self-regulating wiki. Frankly, I hope that if we end up deciding to have Oversighters we never have to use our privileges but if someone has to do it, I hope it's a local trusted member. I would encourage anyone investigating me to take a look at my CheckUser application. Please feel free to ask me any questions on- or off-wiki that you think are relevant. If you find me unsuitable, I'd suggest that you nominate yourself or ask someone else whom you think is a good fit so that Dan can get these rights and help the community. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This poll will run for two weeks: 15:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC). Poll ends 15:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC).

Support

  1.  Support — BanKris (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support Céréales Killer (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Support Sensible choice for the required second oversighter. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Support —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 20:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support RLJ (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support MKOliver (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support --DenesFeri (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support Accassidy (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support--Rojypala (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support — Sobloku (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support Jianhui67 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support — Green Giant (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support Andyboorman (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support Burmeister (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support – Tommy Kronkvist (talk • contribs • block log • all projects) 18:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  17.  Support - PeterR (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Really, the title should be "Overseer", from the verb to "oversee", not "Oversighter" from the noun "oversight"... but then I speak English not American! Accassidy (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Acassidy: The user right is also known as suppressor. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Accassidy: I agree that "Overseer" sounds a lot better, however the term "Oversighter" is used by all other Wikimedia projects. I guess the underlaying reason is that it is derived from the now deprecated MediaWiki extension (and noun) Oversight (superseded by RevisionDelete in the MediaWiki core database). For the sake of consistency we should use the same title. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Not until now I realise that the information about the title is actually shown in plain sight on the Wikispecies:Oversight page itself. Silly me had an awkward time figuring it out using archived extensions- and tech pages on MediaWiki instead... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

(Moved from talk) Hi Dan, I noticed the two requests for oversight. I know that it's kind of late to comment, but do we really need such rights on Wikispecies? I mean: how many needs for such actions are needed yearly? More than 2-3? --Ruthven (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven:, I don't know who decided which user right that should exist on Wikispecies, and which not, this may even have been performed without any formal decision on Phabricator, which may be a starting point to find out about the origin and reasons for different user rights on different projects. It seems originally, that the user right was an MediaWiki extension more than a specified user right. I suggest you start there with your request, but maybe someone else has an idea as to find out why certain user rights exist on Wikispecies, and not.
As for your second question, I also don't know where to find those statistics, how many cases there has been, and how many cases there should be, or what to expect in the future. I remind you that this falls under the Privacy cases, why a fully exposed transparent statistic may not be available. On the page global oversight policy no specific numbers are specified, it only says:
On wikis without an Arbitration Committee, the community must approve oversighters by consensus. The candidates must request it within the local community and advertise this request to the local community properly (community discussion page, mailing list, etc). After gaining consensus (at least 70–80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in their local community, and with at least 25–30 editors' approval, the user should request access on Steward requests/Permissions with a link to the community's decision.
If I understand you right, that you believe this user right should not exist on WS, I guess a suggestion to remove it could be brought up here, and with a link from the Village pump, so everyone are aware of the suggestion to remove the right. After that, if there is a consensus to remove the right, I guess next step would be to discuss it on meta and/or Phabricator.
Maybe you will get response here, right now also, as to what other users think regarding your question. I hope my answer address your question at least in some parts. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Koehl (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards handle oversight actions on all wikis without oversighters. That's a better option than removing the right entirely, which WMF might not be okay with, and which is a bad idea because then I could put in someone's credit card number onto a page, hit Save, and nothing could be done to remove it. --Rschen7754 00:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just surprised that local oversighters were necessary here when on it.wiki the stewards are sufficient. Generally the revdelete is enough to hide private information, which is something that admins do, and hiding information even to admins is quite rare. --Ruthven (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven: I don't know how necessary it is as such but it's just generally better for this project to be self-sustaining and it's generally better for Stewards to have their workload reduced. I don't have any anticipation that Dan or I would need to use CheckUser or Oversight but if it's needed, it's nice to have someone local who can do it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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 archive.
Retrieved from "https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf&oldid=8505970"