Proposal talk:Change usergroup name "Oversight"

    From Strategic Planning

    Not sure which name is better but agree Oversight is not the best name. When the change is carried out, suggest that the mailing list names be rationalised as well. The current Checkuser-l is a mailing list for all checkusers to share information... the current Oversight-l is a mailing list just for en:wp. Its name should probably change to something more indicative of en:wp freeing up the old name suffix "-l" to be global. ++Lar: t/c 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • If a simple rename is proposed, maybe "privacy admin" would be a decent choice. A "privacy admin" would be an admin who has special tools to deal with privacy issues. (Normal admins and normal admin tools can delete but they aren't really designed or intended for handling privacy issues, just for "wrongful junk" that shouldn't be public.) FT2 (Talk | email) 21:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Essentially zero unless you are an oversighter, steward, or are involved with their work on a regular basis. For the community they'd have to get used to a new name. Mike.lifeguard | @meta 04:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Merge privacy-related usergroups

    There's been talk about merging 'oversight' and 'checkuser' into one usergroup. I was initially skeptical of this idea, however in being involved with more oversight work as a steward, I am beginning to think this is a very important step forward. Currently, checkusers and oversighters are pseudo-disjoint groups: while some people are in both (including stewards), the roles do not overlap. In reality, much of the work done under the 'checkuser' and 'oversight' umbrellas are really tightly connected, in particular with vandalism.

    I think this proposal should simply be scrapped in favour of merging the two usergroups. As that proposal has nothing to do with wider strategy initiatives (nor does this one), I'd suggest renewed discussion on checkuser-l and stewards-l, followed by both on-wiki discussion at Meta and on foundation-l. This is a change we should make, but I don't think it's something for the strategic planning process.

    Mike.lifeguard | @meta 18:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]