Wikipedia talk:Oversight

• Revision history for m:Hiding revisions, which this page borrows heavily from.

Is it even possible to Oversight a RevisionDeleted (but not suppressed revision)

Is it even possible to Oversight a RevisionDeleted (but not suppressed revision). That means a revision that both ADMINS and OVERSIGHTERS can see but not the public. ~2026-88624-2 (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

That would just be revision deleted without suppression; suppression is only needed to also restrict from administrators. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The table at WP:Oversight#Nomenclature clearly shows who can view what when each tool has been used. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

OSPOL 4 and 5

The 4th and 5th reasons for requesting Oversight, "Hiding of blatant attack usernames on automated lists and logs" and "Removal of vandalism", have a footnote stating Since tools have since been developed so that administrators can apply deletion norms to all public logs and data fields on the wiki, these criteria might be considered for removal. A similar note has been there since September 2009 and was updated in September 2010 to reflect the creation of revdel . I think it is time to remove these two reasons, but wanted to gather feedback from active Oversighters first. Toadspike [Talk] 11:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

4 has been there since the very beginning of the Oversight page in June 2006 October 2009 with the edit summary "this is reality". 5 was added in August 2009 with the edit summary "this is already happening". The history of RevDel and Oversight is a bit messy. As I understand it there was a period when only "Oversighters" had access to revdel, so it's not clear whether 5 was intended to be a reason for oversight or just for revdel (now covered by RD2 and RD3). "Suppression" referred to both tools at the time. Toadspike [Talk] 12:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer lies in the middle: Sometimes ordinary RevDel is enough, and other times it's not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

4 probably refers to use of hideuser, which causes suppression-level removal of a username from automated lists and logs as part of a block, and is separate from revision deleting or individually suppressing usernames on a per-revision basis. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. @Toadspike Oversighters and stewards can block a user with an extra option which removes the username from all logs and page histories in one fell swoop, including Special:ListUsers (which can't be done by admins). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Forgive my ignorance – if a username needs suppression in that way, how often is it sufficient to do that on a local level, as opposed to having a Steward do it globally? Anyhow, if it is clear to OSers that #4 is still needed, then perhaps the outcome here should be to remove the incorrect footnote from that item. Toadspike [Talk] 17:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike there are edge cases but we almost always need a steward because all accounts are global, but our steward friends aren't always available so we often suppress locally while waiting for a steward, especially if the first admin on the scene is an enwiki oversighter. (I say "often", it's not a frequent occurrence thankfully but when it's needed, it's needed.) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense. I've accordingly removed the footnote from criterion 4, as it seems it was not an "interim solution", nor should the criterion be removed. Toadspike [Talk] 22:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Edit request (17th April 2026)

In the 'Using IRC', add at the end: 'To use IRC, turn off any open proxy that you are using. Otherwise, you will not be able to connect to the channels. If you must use an open proxy, you will need to use one of the other methods listed on this page'.

This may help open proxy users communicate faster by reducing the chance of them staring at the IRC login wondering why they can't join. QwertyForest (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm not sure that's strictly true, as there are multiple web-based options which likely have a way of bypassing the proxy issue. I also don't see anything at Wikipedia:IRC/Tutorial which would indicate this step is necessary. Primefac (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Possible contradiction in Nomenclature section

The second para of the section currently reads Page revisions removed with the old Oversight extension did not leave a placeholder in the page history and could not be restored...; Oversight, however, was superseded by RevisionDelete with the new version and deployment of the MediaWiki software in 2009. ... All visibility changes that were made on Wikipedia using the old Oversight extension were migrated over to the updated workflow and hence are visible and reversible, which seems to contradict itself on the matter of whether or not old Oversight could be reversed. XAM2175 ^(T) 23:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The old OS could not be reversed. From my read of that paragraph, when the new OS workflow was introduced the old OS'd revisions were reintroduced and re-suppressed. I could be wrong in my history though. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

That's my read as well, but @Risker is not unlikely to know the actual answer. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I know the history. The old oversight software could theoretically be reversed, but only by a developer with the very highest level of access. In practice, it was never done, and we were instructed that it would not ever be done, hence "could not be restored". Edits that were oversighted using the old system were literally moved into another revision table. As the final point in the transition to the revision/deletion/suppression software (which started in February 2009), the edits that had previously been oversighted were reinserted into the usual table as fully suppressed edits (username, edit summary and content), with the normal strikethrough. This conversion happened in 2014. As a result, oversighters can now manage the (old-process) oversighted edits in the same way as we manage any suppressed material. I wrote about the history of oversight in more detail a while ago, and posted details about the conversion in Archive 5 of this page. Risker (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit Request

Change to

1. Suppress and unsuppress elements of individual page revisions (revision text, username, or edit summary) using an extended option on the RevisionDelete function page.
2. Suppress and unsuppress elements of log entries (action / target user or page, log summary, or the username / IP of the user that performed the action) using an extended option on the RevisionDelete function page.
3. Suppress and unsuppress individual edit filter logs.
4. Suppress a target account's username from all edits and log entries when applying a block to it using the block function page.
5. Suppress all edits to a page when deleting it.
6. Review the suppression log containing a list of actions taken by all other oversighters involving suppression, as well as the material that was suppressed by that other user.
7. Change the visibility of a abuse filter to to 'supresssion' mode
8. View all suppressed edits, log entries and abuse filters.

Also change in logging section to include a detail about setting a abuse filter to 'supresssion' mode — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-32881-65 (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Isn't point 7 (the only addition/change to the list) the same as point 3? Primefac (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

What's this on simplewiki oversight policy?

The contents may be reviewed by those with oversight rights, though the originally stated intention was that this will only be available for a limited time period. What's the original intention? suppressed data getting permanently deleted after some time? -- Least Action (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like a discussion to have on that page's talk page. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that this comment about the 2009–2014 history might be relevant. Their policy was written at the start of a major software change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposed OS5 update

I drafted an update to OS5 based on a recent list discussion. Our conclusions were that posts where specific threats of violence that could reasonably be construed as a actual threat towards a specific individual or place likely fall under OS5, but generic vandalism (“I have a bomb!”, etc.) would not be suppressed. OS5 is a bit dated so proposing this update both lets the community know what we will consider and also provides a stronger policy basis for actioning these items. Don’t think we need an RfC to update, but bringing it to talk for community input. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Should we encourage admins to revdel this kind of generic vandalism? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

If they fit into situations that are similar to what was described above, yes - definitely (and with a request for an OS to review it made afterwards). Otherwise, administrators should refer to the criteria for redaction and only redact those revisions or logs that clearly fall into one of them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Generic extreme vandalism (weird phrasing, I know) is covered under RD3. This update covers a circumstance the OS team is willing to step in and take additional action. The question always being “what additional benefit is gained by having an admin not see it?” TonyBallioni (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - I really appreciate you for taking the initiative and starting this discussion. I think that it would be helpful to try and list additional situations like this, where immediate suppression by an OS first and a discussion with the OS team is started second is usually acceptable. We're of course not going to be able to (nor do we really want to) publish a big specific list of every single situation where this is usually acceptable, but if we find others that would definitely fit there as well, I don't see an issue with internally discussing whether or not we should list them as well. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah, my suggestion would be to remove the discussion first clause as we’re defining what is the norm. If there’s no objection to that, I’ll do it upon implementation. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, we have long since moved away from "discuss then suppress" and have really moved to advocating for an "action of first resort"/"shoot first" workflow. Primefac (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea to me. Thanks for writing this up Tony. I wonder if it's worth keeping the discuss on the list first clause and phrasing it so it applies if the threats of violence phrasing doesn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs) 09:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Decent point, Callanecc. Would something like In these cases, oversighters may use suppression as a tool of first resort before discussion on the list. In cases where an oversighter believes the vandalism might warrant suppression that are not time-sensitive, they are expected to discuss on oversight-l before applying suppression be a decent wording that clarifies practice and policy? To address Oshwah’s broader point, I don’t see a need to add additional items as RD3 covers the majority of things this criterion was intended for originally, and the few additional that I can think of off the top of my head would relate to child protection, which currently sits with the WMF and is outside the scope of functionaries now. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

As in the following as the whole wording: Suppression may be occasionally used to remove vandalism for which removal by normal administrative measures is insufficient. This criterion will be ordinarily be limited to usage when there are threats of violence or self-harm directed at specific and identifiable places or individuals. In these cases, oversighters may use suppression as a tool of first resort before discussion on the list. In cases where an oversighter believes the vandalism might warrant suppression that are not time-sensitive, they are expected to discuss on oversight-l before applying suppression. I think we can just remove the note completely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for typing up everything. Yes, I’d agree with that as the entire criterion and remove the note. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This wording looks good. The interim note can be removed or just updated as a footnote (after the second sentence) to say that Trust & Safety is contacted at first instances in such cases. - Mailer Diablo 19:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it worth having the bit about which order to discuss and suppress in? Being this explicit almost feels redundant; it's effectively saying "suppress then discuss, unless you think it can be discussed first", which is basically standard practice already. Giraffer (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think what I'm hoping for is a reminder to admins that RD3 still exists, e.g., to remove vandalism for which removal by normal administrative measures, such as WP:RD3, is insufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• We need to keep something that allows for suppress-blocks of obscene usernames and similar. That's currently the only tool that removes the name from Special:ListUsers etc, and although we should be referring those to the stewards, local oversighters tend to be "on-scene" faster than stewards. That is one of the main use cases I can think of for OS5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Obscene usernames would fall under OS5 as "removal of vandalism" - in my mind it's a step up from RD2/RD3 (depending on what type of vulgarity is being used), as "PII usernames" would fall under OS1. Primefac (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  My reading of OS4 permits this already. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• I implemented, Callen’s version above with a link to RD3 per WAID. I think the question on whether or not to keep the list requirement for discussion didn’t have strong consensus either way, and worst case it fits existing practice, so defaulted to keeping the status quo. Will notify the functs list as well so all CU/OS are aware. Thanks for everyone who participated. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for organizing all of this and getting the changes made. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)