Changed Keywords: (N/A) → Shell
Can you please provide a link to some sort of community consensus please.

Do we need a community consensus for getting a mailing list for 4 or 5 oversighters. Agreement between the oversighters should be enough imo.

evula wrote:

Community consensus is not needed in this case, but I have started an on-wiki discussion for definitive consensus between the oversighters to establish that we do indeed want a mailing list. Egg on my face if I'm the only person that wants one. :)

It's just more like an oversighter consensus, but I think this should be enough. THe list is only for the oversighters and so, I think we don't need the consensus of the whole community.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Oversight

Regards
Barras

bugs wrote:

(In reply to comment #0)

requested name of the mailing list: oversight-wikisimple-l

oversight-wp-simple would probably be a better title, so we can get some standardization going (see bug 19136)

initial list administrator's e-mail address: evula@evula.com, I suppose.

Remember you can always change this later and add more people. :-) (However, make sure you give these people the password when they're added, it's a group password and there's no way to recover it through the software.)

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo indicates that only one other oversight-related list exists (Oversight-request-fiwiki-l). Not sure what the need is or whether a more systematic approach for oversight-related mailing lists should be considered first. simple.wikipedia is a relatively small wiki; none of the big wikis have their own oversight-l list....

majorly.wiki wrote:

(In reply to comment #6)

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo indicates that only one other
oversight-related list exists (Oversight-request-fiwiki-l). Not sure what the
need is or whether a more systematic approach for oversight-related mailing
lists should be considered first. simple.wikipedia is a relatively small wiki;
none of the big wikis have their own oversight-l list....

This is simply incorrect: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/oversight-l

bugs wrote:

(In reply to comment #6)

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo indicates that only one other
oversight-related list exists (Oversight-request-fiwiki-l).

There are others, they're just hiding. ;-) We have: oversight-l (should be specified to enwp, but it's old), oversight-wp-de, and oversight-es.

There may be more, but google translate is blocked on the computer I'm on... apparently it's a "Domain with Translation/Redirect Contents!"

He's right that it's really best to have mailing lists for oversight... that way requests are archived and others can comment on them, also speeds up the oversight process.

simple.wikipedia is a relatively small wiki;
none of the big wikis have their own oversight-l list....

Depends what you qualify as "the big wikis". enwiki (oversight-l), dewiki (oversight-wp-de), and eswiki (oversight-es) all have them. ja/pl/it/pt/nl don't have oversights, but frwp has select stewards as their oversights -- this is why these ones don't have lists.

Now whether or not simple actually needs *oversighters* is another story. ;)

bastique.bz wrote:

The German oversighters handle requests with an OTRS queue, and use the list for discussion only. They seem to really like that.

(In reply to comment #9)

The German oversighters handle requests with an OTRS queue, and use the list
for discussion only. They seem to really like that.

Well, we don't use any kind of OTRS on simplewiki. It would just be easier to have an os mailing list for users who want to request an oversight action. It's much easier than mail to 5 users via wikimail.

bastique.bz wrote:

What about the name. It's not so much oversight now as "revision suppression"
Do we want to all it suppression-simple-l ?

(In reply to comment #11)

What about the name. It's not so much oversight now as "revision suppression"
Do we want to all it suppression-simple-l ?

I think it's better to use the unwritten manual of style and use the name other wikis use. I think the tool is more known as oversight and not as supression.

bastique.bz wrote:

Actually, oversight is the old tool. Revision suppression is the new one and the one used. There is no 'manual of style' regarding mailing list names, and in all likelihood, some of these old names will be changed to new ones (for instance, oversight-l only covers the English Wikipedia, anyway). I'm initiating discussion because I'm trying to come up with consensus on a new name rather than just making it that way.

Well, if the other list names will be changed too, I've no problems with an other name. I just think that the names of the list should be simular. I've no problems with you suggestion.

evula wrote:

Total agreement; I'm less concerned with what the mailing list name exactly is (especially if this is coming just as you're considering a new naming scheme), versus just having in at all. I trust that you won't name it "aardvark-orangejuice-l", Cary. ;)

Cary, the new software feature is called "RevisionDelete". Imho it makes no sense to change the name of mailing lists and keep the old name for the user group. If "oversight" must be renamed, it should be renamed globally, not just on the mailing list name.
I don't really understand why it is so difficult to get a mailing list in this case. There are six oversights (dewiki has a mailing list with only five oversights) and they don't have an OTRS queue (if they don't want one, it should be fine. It's their choice). How are users supposed to request OS? Not everyone has IRC and private mails to individual oversights suck, because they spam the inbox of oversights (if all OS are contacted) or they have a potentially long response time (if only one of six OS is contacted).

bastique.bz wrote:

Frankly, I'm not sure why the user group is even called "oversight" on simple wiki when "edit-hiders" would probably make more sense. I'm still working out what the best course is but I should have this list created under whatever name by end of day.

Do it in the way you think it is ok. I think the group should be renamed globally, but this isn't the right place here to discuss this. Anyway, thank you.

@Cary: Oversights can't only hide edits, but also edit summaries, log entries and users. I agree that "Oversight" is not a perfectly intuitive name, but imho another name should be discussed on a broader basis, therefor I created a page on the Strategy wiki: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Change_usergroup_name_%22Oversight%22

bastique.bz wrote:

oversight-wp-simple list created (I'm sure we can create a different name later)

Evula set as administrator.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/oversight-wp-simple