User talk:Keegan/Suppression policy
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Pbsouthwood
- Is there any reason why Wikivoyage should not just use the oversight policy on Meta?
- I can see that there is a need for the access, but have some reservations after it was blatantly misused by IB staff on wikitravel, who appointed themselves with no input from the community. The ability to get rid of an oversighter who misuses the access is possibly more important than having them in the first place. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm passingly familiar with what happened as I decided to log into Wikitravel during its final days. The suppression log is private, but the stewards can see the log and the edits that were suppressed. In the event that the oversight tool is misused, the stewards can remove the access immediately. (By the way, I know that there were already some edits here that were suppressed by stewards, though of course I don't know what they were). Suppression is also reversible, compared to Extension:Oversight. --Rschen7754 08:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Reversible is much better. In general I am strongly in favour of transparency, and when this is not possible a robust accountability procedure. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm passingly familiar with what happened as I decided to log into Wikitravel during its final days. The suppression log is private, but the stewards can see the log and the edits that were suppressed. In the event that the oversight tool is misused, the stewards can remove the access immediately. (By the way, I know that there were already some edits here that were suppressed by stewards, though of course I don't know what they were). Suppression is also reversible, compared to Extension:Oversight. --Rschen7754 08:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)