Hi everyone,

I've only been on oversight-l for a little while, and have been
growing concerned as I watch requests being dropped, and participants
not actively reviewing each others work and looking for opportunities
to help each other out. This is a tough job, as the actions cant be
undone (easily), but they also need to be done quickly to limit the
damage. Feedback from the group needs to be prompt whenever a
difficult case comes in, to ensure the best outcome asap. We need to
check each others work, because if one oversighter says "Done" to a NP
or RC Patroller, you can be sure they are going to believe it and not
check it unless specifically asked to.

Below is a list of all the problems that I have noticed while I have
been here, a period of less than a month. I havent looked at the
archive to see whether this is typical. I hope not.

In short, it appears as if seven (!) requests have not been actioned.
Only two of those "taken" by someone, and even those two have probably
fallen off the todo list.

Do we need more oversighters?

--
John Vandenberg

[Oversight-l] Request for Oversight - Oct 28 - [sender redacted]

Article: [article name redacted]

No action or reply.

[Oversight-l] Wikipedia e-mail - Oct 29 - [sender redacted]

[oversighter redacted] actioned it, but only got one of the two diffs because
the link covered more than one edit.
Two hours later I oversighted the other one.

[Oversight-l] Page moves which require oversight - Oct 30 - [sender redacted]

I oversighted a large number of diffs, but missed almost as many as I hit.
It was three days later when [sender redacted] pointed out that I hadn't
completed the job.

[Oversight-l] Oversight request - sanity check - Oct 31 - [oversighter&sender redacted]

[oversighter&sender redacted] requests a sanity check. Only myself and [another oversighter redacted] give some feedback.

[Oversight-l] Tr : Request Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarrow_School - Oct 31 - [sender redacted]

I removed the offending libel from the visible history, but didnt oversight it.
I sort of requested that my esteemed collegues would guide me here. Nada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jarrow_School

[Oversight-l] Oversighting some more diffs - Nov 1 - [sender redacted]

No action or reply. What is worse, this email reminds the list that a
May 2008 diff is still available.

[Oversight-l] Wikipedia e-mail - Nov 3 [sender redacted]

No discussion on the list to indicate that it was done.

[my comments redacted]

[Oversight-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail - Nov 3 - [sender redacted]

This one went unanswered, and unactioned! (as far as I can see)

[Oversight-l] Personal information deletion - Nov 4 - [sender redacted]

No action or reply.

[Oversight-l] Phone number for oversight - Nov 5 - [sender redacted]

[oversigher redacted] zapped it; no reply to the list.

[Oversight-l] [article redacted] - Nov 6 - [sender redacted]

This gent also requested that we delete his userpage, but here he is
requesting deletion of an article he wrote in mid 2007, and he has
recently requested deletion of some images.
[admin redacted] deleted the article; there was no update to the list about this.

[Oversight-l] Deletion of userpage of banned user - Nov 9 - [sender redacted]

[oversighter redacted] replied that he would consult the blocking admin.
No action has been taken afaics, and there is no feedback to the list.

[Oversight-l] Request for Oversight - Nov 14 - [sender redacted]

I responded, didnt action it, and asked this list, "What do others think?".
No response.
I've not responded to the sender because I am waiting on opinions.

[Oversight-l] Request for deletion - Nov 14 - [sender redacted]

Over five hours later, [oversighter redacted] responds on list. [oversighter redacted] actioned one diff of the two given.
My impression from speaking with [sender redacted] is that she hadnt heard back
from anyone when I replied on the list.
With regard to my email to the list, almost two days ago, I would love
to have some feedback, as I dont understand how oversight was
appropriate here.
Is this a case of IAR? Does IAR apply to the oversight policy?

[Oversight-l] Edit deletion - Nov 16 - [sender redacted]

I've responded to the list and the person requesting oversight, but
not actioned it as I am not clear whether this warrants oversight.
[oversighter redacted] has responded, still seeking oversight, but nobody else has
added their thoughts on the matter.

[Oversight-l] request for oversight - [sender redacted]

One day ago - no response, and I cant see any correlating action in the log.

Never fear, "OS is the most non-time consuming job there is on wiki". Coming from an arbitrator I find that comment incredibly saddening, and combined with John's email I'm sure anyone who's concerned about their privacy will now feel greatly comforted.

Erm ……… yeah!

My favourite bit of the initial post was where he provided an explanation of all the stuff ....

• [oversighter redacted] = username or name of the oversighter has been removed
• [sender redacted] = username or name of the person who sent the email to oversight-l has been removed
• [article redacted] = Wikipedia article name removed

…… Which was greatly comforting, as otherwise I would have been horribly confused over all those guys being called "sender redacted", and all that. Cheers!

Erm ........ yeah!
My favourite bit of the initial post was where he provided an explanation of all the stuff ....

[oversighter redacted] = username or name of the oversighter has been removed
[sender redacted] = username or name of the person who sent the email to oversight-l has been removed
[article redacted] = Wikipedia article name removed

.... Which was greatly comforting, as otherwise I would have been horribly confused over all those guys being called "sender redacted", and all that. Cheers!

He was trying to be transparent in his redactions; rather than use a mysterious catch-all [redaction], or slightly less opaque headings like [oversighter redacted], he explained why each bit was removed.

Sometimes, transparency is boring.

He was trying to be transparent in his redactions; rather than use a mysterious catch-all [redaction], or slightly less opaque headings like [oversighter redacted], he explained why each bit was removed.

Sometimes, transparency is boring.

Tagged for Web Searches under • Sartor Resartus •


He forgot one —

[redactor redacted] = name or username of the person or pseudoperson redacting the email has been removed.

Ja Ja

[oversighter redacted] = username or name of the oversighter has been removed

Crap, this looks like Nixon's own first-released transcripts of the Nixon tapes. Or what you get if you request anything interesting at from the feds using the FOI act.

I've heard they sometimes send you a photocopy of a page where every simple word has been magic-markered out. So you get just a page of pudgy black lines. But still charged for it.

I do have to ask..... why?

Crap, this looks like Nixon's own first-released transcripts of the Nixon tapes. Or what you get if you request anything interesting at from the feds using the FOI act.

I've heard they sometimes send you a photocopy of a page where every simple word has been magic-markered out. So you get just a page of pudgy black lines. But still charged for it.

The whole point is to just enjoy yourself.

This oversight-list "revelation" tells us nothing we don't already know — that the oversighters aren't doing their jobs.

Sometimes they give you the entire text with just the names blacked out. However, the older documents are typed in a monospace font, so sometimes you can count the number of letters and figure out from that who is being referred to.

I do have to ask..... why?

Not enjoying myself here.

This oversight-list "revelation" tells us nothing we don't already know--that the oversighters aren't doing their jobs.

"We need more crats" my ballsack.

This oversight-list "revelation" tells us nothing we don't already know--that the oversighters aren't doing their jobs.

I don't believe you made it particularly clear as to how the mention of those names in association with the school was supposed to be harmful to the two people in question. You could always PM me about it if you'd rather keep it reasonably private, and we do have the ability to hide individual posts or even character strings from search engines. (Just don't tell anybody about the character strings... )