User talk:LFaraone/Archive/2014/November
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:LFaraone. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Suppression
Care to tell me under which of the criteria at Wikipedia:Oversight you suppressed my edit? I'm assuming you're the one who suppressed seeing as how you have oversight permissions and you did the revert. I never have had a satisfactory reply to my queries as to why who does a suppression needs to be private. I don't believe the supression meets any of the criteria - indeed I carefully worded it so it didn't breach policy, or at least my interpretation of it. Dpmuk (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you have questions about the use of the suppression tool, please conduct the Audit Subcommittee. LFaraone 01:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ha. Why make life difficult for yourself and the rest of the committee. More evidence of a complete lack of transparency. I see no point in contacting AUSC seeing as how you're apparently a member - well maybe since all the pages says your term ended in August but you don't seem to have been replaced - and there's no policy in place for how to deal with that. That does not inspire confidence in how it will be dealt with. Dpmuk (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Here's the thing about oversight, Dpmuk: a lot of the time, if we told the community (or revealed publicly) what we had oversighted or why we had oversighted it, that would negate the point of having oversighted it in the first place. I had to explain to someone recently, for example, why we suppress all purported outings, and not just accurate ones: because doing otherwise would be to publicly confirm outings after the fact by the mere act of suppression. For similar reasons, you're not going to get any oversighters to sit down and have a chat with you onwiki about exactly why they oversighted Content X, because to explain the reasoning behind that suppression would require identifying at least some of the qualities of Content X. We know that there are going to be cases where those not privy to oversight logs will want to know that the suppression is justified; that's why we have AUSC: you're intended to pass your concerns on to them and they will check over the oversighter's work. AUSC may not be perfect, but there's no other venue capable of investigating, discussing, and evaluating content that by (assumed) definition must be kept private. As with any wiki process, I imagine, it would be expected that someone on AUSC who was the subject of an AUSC complaint would recuse from that discussion. I can understand you being dissatisfied with your options, but they remain your options nonetheless: request an AUSC investigation to verify the suppression, or just accept that your question cannot be answered in the manner you insist it be answered. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Fluffernutter: I actually broadly agree with what you say, which is why I asked for what criteria and only what criteria was involved. I see no possible way that that information, or who did the suppression, could result in a breach of privacy. In your example saying a suppression was due to possible outing (or even more generally criteria 1) and who did the suppression does not lead to a breach of privacy, although I agree only suppressing true outings would. Dpmuk (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Here's the thing about oversight, Dpmuk: a lot of the time, if we told the community (or revealed publicly) what we had oversighted or why we had oversighted it, that would negate the point of having oversighted it in the first place. I had to explain to someone recently, for example, why we suppress all purported outings, and not just accurate ones: because doing otherwise would be to publicly confirm outings after the fact by the mere act of suppression. For similar reasons, you're not going to get any oversighters to sit down and have a chat with you onwiki about exactly why they oversighted Content X, because to explain the reasoning behind that suppression would require identifying at least some of the qualities of Content X. We know that there are going to be cases where those not privy to oversight logs will want to know that the suppression is justified; that's why we have AUSC: you're intended to pass your concerns on to them and they will check over the oversighter's work. AUSC may not be perfect, but there's no other venue capable of investigating, discussing, and evaluating content that by (assumed) definition must be kept private. As with any wiki process, I imagine, it would be expected that someone on AUSC who was the subject of an AUSC complaint would recuse from that discussion. I can understand you being dissatisfied with your options, but they remain your options nonetheless: request an AUSC investigation to verify the suppression, or just accept that your question cannot be answered in the manner you insist it be answered. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ha. Why make life difficult for yourself and the rest of the committee. More evidence of a complete lack of transparency. I see no point in contacting AUSC seeing as how you're apparently a member - well maybe since all the pages says your term ended in August but you don't seem to have been replaced - and there's no policy in place for how to deal with that. That does not inspire confidence in how it will be dealt with. Dpmuk (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)