Contents 1 Oversight policy regarding DOB 2 Logging of Revdels 3 Special:Emailuser link inactive 4 Handling of IP addresses accidentally revealed 5 Oversight of New York Times identification of Wikipedia editor 6 True deletion

Oversight policy regarding DOB[edit] I'm starting to be confused. I first heard about oversight when I responded to a Teahouse question from a very young editor who had mentioned their age. That was maybe a year ago. As I've been doing userspace NPP for a while, I have occasionally found user pages that disclose DOB, phone numbers, etc. Based on advice in WP:DOB, I had been quietly removing the information and reporting to oversight. The first several instances received very nice thank you notes from the oversight team. But now I'm being told that the oversight team is not interested in DOB information for non-minors and, when directed to this WP:Oversight policy page, I don't even see anything about self-reported personal information for even very young minors. To clarify, is a change needed at WP:DOB or here? Thanks, — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC) Neither. WP:DOB is clearly about protecting the privacy of article subjects, not about policing what editors put on their userpages. Editors can disclose as much or as little information about themselves as they wish, with the exception of children, who are more vulnerable and less able to asses the risks of posting personal information. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC) Yes, I understand that this is the policy "in practice", but this policy page as written says nothing about minors and the WP:DOB page still includes the words "or anywhere on Wikipedia". I don't intend to continue to pester you on this issue, nor file reports on items where there is apparently no need to act, but I still think these issues should be clarified in the written policy documents. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC) In context, the WP:DOB section is clearly not (but admittedly not explicitly) not talking about self-disclosure. It might make sense to add "self-disclose by apparent minors" explicitly to this policy (it's one of the standard reasons we can use when suppressing something), but I've been an oversighter for nearly 3 years and this is the first time anyone has had an issue with this afaik. Risker has been on the team much longer and typically has a very good memory for this sort of thing though so it's worth getting their input to this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC) The tendency of minors to publish their personal information, which with the original oversight tool was almost impossible to oversight, was an important motivation in the development of the suppression and revision-deletion tools. Back in the day, it was not possible to oversight the very first revision of a page, which was usually where that personal information was included. I suspect it was simply well-understood by the communities of the time that the user pages of minors that contained personal information (which I will note frequently includes the personal information of other people, too) was a clear-cut situation that called for suppression-deletion. The WMF's position, when I asked several years ago, was that the Meta oversight policy outlined the minimum situations in which oversight should be offered, and that communities could add other criteria as they saw fit; that position was developed after revision-deletion was installed in early 2009. Avi and I are probably the last active oversighters who used the actual oversight tool; the rules were so stringent then because old-school oversighting actually had an impact on the databases and "corrupted" histories and just plain made a mess of everything. We were also dealing with a culture that, in its idealistic way, believed that Wikipedia should retain a publicly-accessible akashic record of every edit that ever had been made. I think we have gotten over that, and there are not very many people who feel that publicly accessible trolling and BLP violations are required for the "integrity" of the encyclopedia - not to mention phone numbers, home addresses, etc. There are also historical issues that highlighted the need to take special care with the personal information of minors (see Wikipedia:Child protection and Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors) - these policies and guidelines were written based on actual experience. Simply put, Wikipedia cannot be seen as a vector for inappropriate activities related to its younger editors. Adult editors are a different story, as they're assumed to be informed enough to realize that publishing such personal information has a very big downside. And WP:DOB comes in to play for everyone else in the world who isn't an adult editor who published his or her own personal information. It's rather shocking how often we will see people publishing the personal information of friends, family, family of article subjects, and so on. I hope this is helpful. Risker (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC) Wow, Risker, that's a more complicated history than I ever knew before. Even when the written policy may not be entirely clear, I'll try to follow in the spirit of what's been talked about here. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC) I've found two things to contribute to this discussion in regards to trying to answer your question: "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages". - WP:BLPTALK "3) Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information." - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy#Counseling. WP:CHILD failed to materialize and WP:CHILDPRO eventually formed in 2010. I believe the Arbitration remedy remains in effect. I could not find any documentation indicating that it had been rescinded or replaced. I am fairly leery about how old it is so perhaps others have more recent information. Mkdw talk 05:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC) As I see it, the relevant quote from WP:BLPTALK for this discussion is The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to what Wikipedia is not, which deals with self-disclosures. It goes on to mention minors, but only with the word discouraged. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Logging of Revdels[edit] According to the Logging section: Revisions that have been suppressed using Oversight were logged at Special:Oversight; however, this has been superseded with Special:RevisionDelete. Based on an IRC discussion I think this is incorrect and they are included in the deletion log. If that is correct we ought to fix this sentence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC) There was some ambiguity to the wording of that sentence. "This" was referring to Special:Oversight rather than RevDel logs, so I reworded it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Thanks. --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser link inactive[edit] It looks like the top contact method listed - the link to Special:EmailUser/Oversight - is turned off. Is that a temporary thing, or a permanent one? Either way, there should be a modification/notification to this page's instructions so that people know that they can't contact Oversight through Special:EmailUser. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC) This was definitely working a few days back and over the course of the past few months.I have no idea what the issue is but it ought to be fixed ASAP.Winged BladesGodric 17:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC) This is phab:T182541/phab:T178842. Since User:Oversight does not have any edits/logged actions, it can only receive emails from crats, stewards, global renamers, and WMF Support and Safety. Someone needs to make a dummy edit with the account. @Risker, Alex Shih, Callanecc, DGG, Doug Weller, Euryalus, KrakatoaKatie, Ks0stm, Mkdw, Newyorkbrad, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, or Worm That Turned: do you have the credentials for this account? — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC) @JJMC89: Thank you! I really wish there's a way WMF can inform the community whenever they introduce potentially groundbreaking features, since not everyone keeps Phabricator watchlisted. Alex Shih (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Many thanks.Echo Alex in his entirety.Such changes ought not to be only brodcasted in the desolate corners of Phab, rarely visited by an average pedian.Winged BladesGodric 17:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC) By the way, Alex don't you have the credentials?Winged BladesGodric 17:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Logs show it was last made by Risker. — xaosflux Talk 18:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Still not working though. A dummy edit is probably necessary. Alex Shih (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC) It's being worked on. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC) OK, I made a dumb edit using the User:Arbitration Committee account. (Oh, wait, you said a dummy edit? Oops... ;) Email appears to be working now. I don't have the password for the oversight account handy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC) And here you could have made a sensible edit! Primefac (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks all for the pings. Noting that this appears to be resolved for these accounts, although I think it's ridiculous that the "anti-harassment" feature blocked the ability of the user to receive emails without giving the user any choice, instead of blocking certain types of accounts from *sending* emails. Seems that's pretty much the opposite of what the phab tickets were about. And for the record, account creation is a logged action. That's why it appears in the logs.... Risker (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Handling of IP addresses accidentally revealed[edit] I was looking through our guidance on suppression and saw an entry in Wikipedia:Oversight/FAQ, which seems perfectly reasonable to me: IP address Q: I don't have a Wikipedia account. My IP address was published on Wikipedia when I edited. Can you remove it? A: If you wish to conceal your IP, you should create an account. In some cases, suppression may still be considered, for example, if you are a new editor and did not realise your IP address would be publicly published. At year-end, the English Wikipedia oversight manual was posted on an email list (I think the functionaries list). If there's an online link I don't know it. That manual contains this advice (emphasis added): 1.2.1 Logged out editor as an IP There is a need to be careful with this criterion. The standard practice is to use this for autoconfirmed users and users in good standing who have accidentally edited while logged out, exposing their IP address. In general, requests from new users who were ignorant about the existence of article history logs are denied. This will be discussed further in the Handling Responses section. As a possibly important aside, I do not see a "Handling Responses" section. I do see a section titled "Handling Requests" but it doesn't seem to be a further discussion of this issue, so if there is further discussion I haven't found it. My main concern is that this advice seems to be at odds with the earlier advice. I am totally on board with removing it for users in good standing who accidentally edit while logged out (this has happened to me), but I am surprised that we would deny such a request from a new user who knew nothing about the fact that their IP address is entered into the more or less permanent history logs.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC) I've noticed this disconnect between policy and practice myself and I've been meaning to raise it on the mailing list. We seem to have got a lot more liberal on the suppression of IPs in recent years, to the point that I think we're being far too liberal. As far as I'm aware, the original point of suppressing IPs was to prevent somebody inferring a connection between an IP address and a named account (for example, if I replied to a comment addressed to me while inadvertently logged out, it's not hard to infer that the IP address that made that edit belongs to me, and from that you could glean certain personal information about me; in my case it's unlikely you'd learn anything you couldn't find publicly, but editors are entitled to withhold whatever information they wish). Without something to connect it to an IP address is a meaningless string of numbers that could belong to anyone, and I don't think we should suppress it (subject to the usual caveat that there's an exception to every rule). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC) The "Oversight manual" that got posted to the list is very, very outdated; I think it was written circa 2012. (I participated in writing the first one, someone else should be updating it.) The practice was authorized by the community in July 2015. If someone gets as far as figuring out how to make an oversight request because they logged out, or because they didn't realize their IP was going to be published (a very common "lack of knowledge" for first time users), they can have their IP oversighted. I'm rather shocked this is not common knowledge amongst oversighters. Risker (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC) The date on the manual is 2010, so yes, it is dated. Should I have posted this in the mailing list rather than here?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC) I thought about that before responding, but my sense is that it's probably better here; there's nothing confidential about this question, and it is probably a good think for the community to have the opportunity to see that oversighters continue to learn, to question, and to discuss the relevant policies. Back in 2015, we ran into a pile of very legitimate requests from new IP editors to suppress their IPs; we knew that the "warning" interface is pretty much awful, and we already knew that we regularly have longstanding editors who wind up "publishing" through that warning. I'm glad that we took that question to the community at large rather than just the oversight list, because it was pretty quickly apparent that there wasn't much concern about this in the community, and oversighters could feel assured that they were interpreting the policy as the community does. Risker (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Oversight of New York Times identification of Wikipedia editor[edit] In a 14 October 2017 article, The New York Times identified the Wikipedia account of Joshua Boyle as User:Sherurcij. I had the misfortune to make that connection on Talk:Kidnapping of Joshua Boyle and Caitlan Coleman. I was accused of outing by User:Geo Swan. My comment on the article's talk page and my explanation on my own talk page were oversighted. When I questioned how it could be outing when a reliable source had identified the username, I was told by User:Primefac that the issue was that Boyle had not "voluntarily" told the NYT what his username was. So our internal rule about outing prevented even talk page discussion of a fact sourced to the NYT. This seemed absurd so I started a discussion on Jimbo's page. While that discussion was still active, another newspaper ran a story on Boyle's editing and User:Earl Andrew put a link to on the article's talk page. I alerted them to the situation, but was told by User:Primefac "One source is questionable, two points make a line. Consider it settled". Since sourcing was never mentioned as an issue, I asked of more information and was told "The OS decision was based on the fact that the connection was not specifically listed as "he said he edited as...", but since there is a second source that's confirmation of a sort". It was quite clear in the discussion on my talk page that the reason for oversight was that Boyle himself did not disclose the username. Not a question about the source or the number of sources or any lack of confirmation. This is not an accusation of wrongdoing or deliberate misuse of Oversight tools. I am certain that the decision to oversight was made with the best of intentions. I fully expected that the oversight was going to be reversed even without the second news report, but I feel like the initial decision should never have been made and the rationale for having made it seems to be curiously flexible now that we have another source. This isn't a situation which is likely to come up a lot, but can we agree that reliably sourced identification of a Wikipedia editor who is also the subject of a Wikipedia article is not outing and, as such, not a candidate for oversight? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Have you just outed someone because Jimbo/Primefac says it's ok? And done it again knowing that the original was oversighted? That's not the way to change policy. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC) If you'd read what I posted, you'd know that I have not. And I'm not trying to change policy, just have people apply it sensibly. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC) I believe that a bright line -- which was not violated here AFAIK -- is that links to reliable sources such as newspapers should never be subject to censorship by oversight. This is an encyclopedia and the connection to the broader world is its point of origin. If people accept that, it follows inevitably that because anyone can link to the newspaper source without oversight, there is no point oversighting the data the source gave us. Which is what was said above. I should note, however, that despite its awful name and frequent misapplication, the WP:OUTING policy should really be taken, above all, as a prohibition on opposition research used to gain advantage in Wikipedia squabbles. There are many things that are not secret but are still off topic and in bad taste to bring up against fellow editors. In my mind it is unequivocally correct to link Joshua Boyle, as an article subject, to a Wikipedia username as a matter of biography. It would however be wrong to link the username to him if your point were to argue that you feel he is not a fit person to be editing articles about (whatever) if he were on here editing and you had a dispute. In that case such a link might well be reverted and the editor admonished for violating WP:OUTING. However, as it depends on a published source, it still need not actually be oversighted, because any editor capable of tracking back the revision history is capable of typing the username into a search engine. And if it need not be oversighted then it should not be oversighted. Wnt (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC) When multiple sources out a Wikipedia editor and that information becomes easily accessible through major search engines, the cat is out of the bag and oversighting the information just because it is outing is inappropriate. In this case, the cat is definitely out of the bag. Mr. Boyle, under the user name “Sherurcij” (which also sometimes included the first name “Josh”) spent a lot of time editing and updating the Wikipedia page"" --New York Times "...62,267 changes and additions Joshua Boyle made to Wikipedia ... he created his first Wikipedia profile under the user name Sherurcij..." --MSN News, Calgary Herald, The World News "We know that Joshua Boyle, prior to his captivity, was a frequent editor of Wikipedia... As Wikipedia User:Sherurcij had made tens of thousands of edits over the years," --Wikipediocracy That being said, as Wnt correctly points out, there are other good reasons that can support oversighting even if the general outing policy does not. Opposition research is not allowed on any Wikipedia page and should be oversighted. In articles (as opposed to talk pages) WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT apply, and in my opinion personal information posted to article space that violates those policies should be subject to oversighting as well as deletion. And of course there are the "Removing prohibited material", Removing harmful posts", and "Removing Off-topic posts" provisions of WP:TPOC. In my opinion personal information posted anywhere that violates those policies should be subject to oversighting as well as deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC) I didn't say quite what you're suggesting there -- I was agreeing with the reversion or removal of opposition research, but not the oversighting of publicly available information. Actually I remain generally skeptical of whether oversighting is really useful at all, since untoward information can be posted anywhere, and in any case, I see it as a dangerous practice that should be kept rare. When a neutral editor, reading only a general description that a controversy exists, is able to recreate the information on his own, it should not be oversighted. The Wikipediocracy link demonstrates that there is pretty much a continuum between very public data (New York Times), specialty outlets for people with axes to grind (Daily Dot), self-published sources (Wikipediocracy), and web forums (4chan). This is one reason why I hate the cat-out-of-the-bag notion of "outing", because it seems so utterly subjective when the cat is out of the bag. If a state arrest record is up and you can make a deduction that this name matches a Wikipedia handle on a dating site ... I mean, most of the cat-out-of-the-bag notions get to a point where some form or another of deduction is taken to be wrong, and I don't like a ban on thinking. But a ban on opposition research as off-topic whether the cat is "out" or not (when dealing with editors as editors) and existing restrictions on self-published and unreliable sourcing (when dealing with editors as article subjects) seems more solidly founded. Wnt (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Point well taken. I may be too liberal in what I think should be oversighted. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

True deletion[edit] We know that there exists XfD, PROD, and CSD. Normal deletion. There also exists Oversight. But is it possible to truly delete something from all records, as in, it no longer exists in any form on the servers? Curiousity question. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC) A system administrator could delete any / all data from underlying databases. However, depending on how long the information in question had been in place, the harder / more problematic such a "true deletion" becomes. For example, removal of data from five years ago would require deletion from every intervening revision and every backup. It would still exist on various mirrors. So, while it is theoretically possible to delete something, in practical terms it isn't (in my opinion). It would be easier to logically delete it by hashing / scrubbing the data in question rather than trying to delete it from the databases, but even then it wouldn't be possible to do this across all the backups, etc. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC) ...And once anything is published on the Internet, "true deletion" would involve somehow making sure that no computer anywhere in the world has stored a copy. Even a supposedly successful attempt to do a "true delete" that only involved servers that Wikipedia controls is not guaranteed to delete the information; modern forensics tools can often recover deleted information from a hard disk. That being said, from a practical standpoint, most of the information that gets oversighted never gets saved elsewhere, and the same people who we trust to oversight the information can be trusted to tell most people who might want to access the oversighted information to pound sand. So if you are, say, someone who accidentally posted an email address, once it is oversighted it is for all practical purposes gone for good. If, on the other hand, you are the newest head of ISIS and there is a court order to try to recover some oversighted information related to a terrorist plot, then you were a fool to put the information on any computer anywhere, and it is likely that the FBI already has the info without Wikipedia ever knowing about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Right, I just mean off of Wikimedia's servers. Why do we go to the trouble of oversighting when the data still exists? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC) See "..even by administrators. It is used within strict limits to protect privacy...". Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I know that. It's the principle of the thing though. It still exists somewhere. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC) This is going well beyond the scope of this talk page but some thought shows that a "true delete" button would be a big mistake. People are busy and stuff happens. If a "true delete" button existed, an accidental click could not be corrected. Further, other functionaries would not be able to examine what the person who clicked the button was doing. Suggestions might have been made that the deleter made a mistake or deletes against policy. If the material has permanently gone, such issues could not be investigated. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Ok, fair point. But it seems logical that we would want to eventually perma-delete things that were previously supressed, if it's agreed that there is no reason not to. Yes, I know it's fairly off-topic for this page, but I'm not sure where else to ask. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Retrieved from ""

Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces Project pageTalk Variants Views ReadEditNew sectionView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage information Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version Languages This page was last edited on 21 March 2018, at 23:26. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.148","walltime":"0.238","ppvisitednodes":{"value":682,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":17343,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":3628,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":11,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":0,"limit":500},"unstrip-depth":{"value":0,"limit":20},"unstrip-size":{"value":0,"limit":5000000},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 103.743 1 -total"," 44.69% 46.362 1 Template:Caution"," 40.99% 42.524 1 Template:Mbox"," 25.62% 26.576 1 Wikipedia_talk:Oversight/Front_matter"," 19.48% 20.208 1 Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Oversight"," 17.59% 18.252 1 Template:Editnotice"," 11.71% 12.153 2 Template:Divbox"," 9.54% 9.898 2 Template:Main_other"," 8.63% 8.956 1 Template:Fmbox"," 6.06% 6.289 1 Template:Ping"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.030","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":1511730,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1313","timestamp":"20180321232614","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":74,"wgHostname":"mw1275"});});

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_oversight - Photos and All Basic Informations

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_oversight More Links

Special:EmailUser/OversightWikipedia:Policies And GuidelinesWikipedia:Policies And GuidelinesWikipedia:Staying Cool When The Editing Gets HotWikipedia:Don't PanicWarningWikipedia:Requests For OversightWarningWikipedia Talk:Oversight/revisionWikipedia:How To Archive A Talk PageWikipedia Talk:Oversight/Archive 1Wikipedia Talk:Oversight/Archive 2Wikipedia Talk:Oversight/Archive 3Wikipedia Talk:Oversight/Archive 4Wikipedia Talk:Oversight/Archive 5Wikipedia:DOBWikipedia:OversightWikipedia:DOBUser:JmcgnhUser Talk:JmcgnhSpecial:Contributions/jmcgnhUser:HJ MitchellUser Talk:HJ MitchellWikipedia:DOBUser:JmcgnhUser Talk:JmcgnhSpecial:Contributions/jmcgnhWikipedia:DOBUser:RiskerUser:ThryduulfUser Talk:ThryduulfAkashic RecordsWikipedia:Child ProtectionWikipedia:Guidance For Younger EditorsWikipedia:DOBUser:RiskerUser Talk:RiskerUser:RiskerUser:JmcgnhUser Talk:JmcgnhSpecial:Contributions/jmcgnhWikipedia:BLPTALKWikipedia:Requests For Arbitration/Protecting Children's PrivacyWikipedia:CHILDWikipedia:CHILDPROUser:MkdwUser Talk:MkdwWikipedia:BLPTALKUser:JmcgnhUser Talk:JmcgnhSpecial:Contributions/jmcgnhUser:SphilbrickUser Talk:SphilbrickSpecial:Oversight (page Does Not Exist)User:DoRDUser Talk:DoRDUser:SphilbrickUser Talk:SphilbrickSpecial:EmailUser/OversightUser:TenOfAllTradesUser Talk:TenOfAllTradesUser:Winged Blades Of GodricUser Talk:Winged Blades Of GodricUser:OversightUser:RiskerUser:Alex ShihUser:CallaneccUser:DGGUser:Doug WellerUser:EuryalusUser:KrakatoaKatieUser:Ks0stmUser:MkdwUser:NewyorkbradUser:Opabinia RegalisUser:Premeditated ChaosUser:RickinBaltimoreUser:Worm That TurnedUser:JJMC89User Talk:JJMC89Special:Contributions/JJMC89User:JJMC89User:Alex ShihUser Talk:Alex ShihUser:Winged Blades Of GodricUser Talk:Winged Blades Of GodricUser:Alex ShihUser:Winged Blades Of GodricUser Talk:Winged Blades Of GodricUser:XaosfluxUser Talk:XaosfluxUser:Alex ShihUser Talk:Alex ShihUser:PrimefacUser Talk:PrimefacUser:Arbitration CommitteeUser:Opabinia RegalisUser Talk:Opabinia RegalisSpecial:Diff/818636221User:PrimefacUser Talk:PrimefacUser:RiskerUser Talk:RiskerWikipedia:Oversight/FAQUser:SphilbrickUser Talk:SphilbrickUser:HJ MitchellUser Talk:HJ MitchellWikipedia:Village Pump (proposals)/Archive 125User:RiskerUser Talk:RiskerUser:SphilbrickUser Talk:SphilbrickUser:RiskerUser Talk:RiskerKidnapping Of Joshua Boyle And Caitlan ColemanUser:SherurcijTalk:Kidnapping Of Joshua Boyle And Caitlan ColemanUser:Geo SwanUser:PrimefacUser:Earl AndrewUser:PrimefacUser:World's Lamest CriticUser Talk:World's Lamest CriticUser:JohnuniqUser Talk:JohnuniqUser:World's Lamest CriticUser Talk:World's Lamest CriticWikipedia:OUTINGJoshua BoyleUser:WntUser Talk:WntWikipedia:VWikipedia:RSWikipedia:WEIGHTWikipedia:TPOCUser:Guy MaconUser Talk:Guy MaconUser:WntUser Talk:WntUser:Guy MaconUser Talk:Guy MaconUser:JjjjjjddddddUser Talk:JjjjjjddddddUser:QuiteUnusualUser Talk:QuiteUnusualUser:Guy MaconUser Talk:Guy MaconUser:JjjjjjddddddUser Talk:JjjjjjddddddUser:JohnuniqUser Talk:JohnuniqUser:JjjjjjddddddUser Talk:JjjjjjddddddUser:JohnuniqUser Talk:JohnuniqUser:JjjjjjddddddUser Talk:JjjjjjddddddDiscussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Project Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer

view link view link view link view link view link