Jump to content

Policy talk:Office actions/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Billinghurst in topic Categorization

Import notes

While a de facto policy on all Wikimedia Foundation projects, it should be noted that it enjoys extremely rare use. While discussing this policy, please recall that the Foundation requires the privilege to maintain the proper and legal operation of its servers. Failure to comply with Office actions may well result (aside from penalties) legal seizure of assets including the same servers hosting your content!

This policy works best, therefore, when it's never needed. Kylu 03:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be put on the content page, not here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Local versions

In the interests of clarity (and of office actions not being reversed), every local project should really have at least a soft redirect to this page, preferably with a "nutshell" local language summary (compare commons:Commons:Office actions). Actions should also ideally mention the local project version in the edit summary / log entry, and link to it from the relevant user page. Rd232 02:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent update

Office actions have primarily only been used for content. Recently, it was used for the very first time to globally ban a user who had been active on commons. There was no explanation provided beyond the standard Office action disclaimer. There is also the assumption that there was no legal order this time requiring such an action. The policy on Meta and elsewhere still clearly states, that office actions can be used to blank or delete pages. I would like to invite the WMF staff to discuss this recent addition and change here, and ratify it first with the rest of the community, before breaking new ground, and using office action to ban a user again. Theo10011 (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Terms_of_Use#10._Management_of_Websites. Rd232 (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The new TOI don't speak about OFFICE action as established policy. The new TOI are new in themselves, and the office action policy predates it by a few years. Since, TOI does mention global ban policy, but the current framework doesn't exist yet, and office action was most recently used to globally block someone, this should reflect in the Office action policy pages on all wiki, preferably after some sort of discussion. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
This does seem inconsistent. The current policy here essentially states that WMF staff will occasionally take this drastic action in response to legal requests about articles (or more widely content), since of course no matter what we must comply with the law. What needs to be discussed is whether the policy should be expanded to cover actions not relating to content editing and not required for legal compliance. Now, of course, WMF ultimately owns the place and so can do as they wish by fiat, and just say "We'll do it whether you like it or not, if you don't like it leave." Especially after the English WP ACTRIAL debacle, I hope WMF has learned that's an excellent way to get a lot of good volunteers to take up the offer to leave, and that seeking and then respecting consensus, even though they don't have to, is a wise idea. But if they do intend to make the change by fiat, they should at least change the policy to reflect the new and expanded use of office actions. Seraphimblade (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
As regards blocks etc., it's been made very clear that the WMF will do whatever they wish for whatever reason with no need to tell why. This is what the ToU for legal reasons and the praxis say. The unlimited discretional power of the WMF is limited only by self-restrictions of its usage, so for instance this page is mostly obsolete now; the only effect it has is that to enact DMCA notices the WMF has to follow that particular process, while for all the rest it has complete freedom because o restrictions are written anywhere. --Nemo 10:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Official, formal complaint"

The page says «Office actions are only occasioned by an official, formal complaint made off-wiki (e.g. mail, email, telephone calls or personal meetings) about the content». Could you please confirm that this is still valid? It would also be nice to know what "an official, formal complaint" actually is: for instance, can anyone send an email to any WMF address, or are only complaints made according to the law considered official and formal; or what middle ground?
To clarify, I'm not talking of what already discussed above, but only of the 6th bullet in Terms_of_Use#10._Management_of_Websites (i.e. not: investigation, technical abuse, blocks/bans, legal actions). --Nemo 14:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's important to know that the things covered under that bullet are not necessarily Office Actions as defined at Office actions, although they could be. it's sort of a "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" situation. So perhaps it would be easier if you laid out a scenario and I could address that more specifically, rather than in the abstract? Philippe (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
What bullet are you talking about now? :) I'm asking only about that specific point in this page, which is quite specific. For instance, for DMCA cases it means that only the copyright owner as defined by the DMCA itself will be able to file a request (obviously).
I know that the last point in ToU(10) is very general on purpose, but does it affect the question above? I explicitly excluded the first 5 points because they are either not "office actions" (on the wikis) as meant here or they clearly take precedence over this policy (for instance global bans for which there is a defined process), so they could bring the discussion very offtopic compared to my question.
I know I'm clarifying by negation only, but is this enough or do you still need a scenario to answer? (Scenarios are often misleading, IMHO.) --Nemo 18:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me try again, I wasn't clear. Not every action taken under the TOU meets the official definition of an Office Action, as on this page. Those can be other enforcement actions, taken by the office, but not "office actions" as defined here. So, for an Office Action, as defined on this page, yes, that statement holds true. I would say that in practice, it's also true for the TOU, although it isn't defined there.
As for the definition of a formal complaint, we would typically require that it be a complaint submitted in writing (usually through service, but post and sometimes email would suffice, depending on the nature of the complaint) addressed to the Foundation (not a project governance body) and requesting our involvement.
Of course, this is situational. It is possible that a less formal complaint could theoretically be accepted if we think waiting longer would unreasonably compromise the safety or property of the Foundation, its volunteers, or others. In that circumstance (and at the discretion of the Foundation's legal team) we may not require the formality. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
So in short there isn't any requirement except the written form, although some requests are valued more than others. --Nemo 17:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
No, there is a requirement, but there is also broad discretion to the legal team in enforcement. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the difference. What's not required is not a requirement. If you say "there's a requirement that the complaint is short", but then in a footnote define short as "at our discretion, roughly between 0 and 10^24 words" again it's not a requirement but just a criterion for a subjective evaluation. It's fine like this, I don't mind the absence of requirements but only outdated/unclear/misleading language. --Nemo 15:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Where can one report copyright violations occurring in closed Wikipedias that host local media files (ng, cho, mh, mo, ii, ten)? Who can delete files there? 05:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

SRM. --Nemo 13:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for office actions

I request that w:en:PFT Commenter be stubbifed and protected. I just had to courtesy-blank 2 attack sections and comment out a badly-sourced attack statement. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

English Wikipedia

It's inappropriate for the first line of the page to link pages specific to the English Wikipedia. If this page is only designed around the English Wikipedia, please state so and declare the other wikis unconcerned with it. Thanks, Nemo 13:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Large expansion in June 2017

By a single user, without any discussion here. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


I encourage the policy writers at the WMF to cease and desist from their habit to introduce tautologies everywhere. "Abusive requests are not acceptable" is a particularly useless sentence. --Nemo 13:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-existing email address

[1] falsely states «you can submit your concerns through trustandsafety@wikimedia.org». In reality, I just tested this email address and my message was bounced:

We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact (trustandsafety) may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages to the group. A few more details on why you weren't able to post:

  • You might have spelled or formatted the group name incorrectly.
  • The owner of the group may have removed this group.
  • You may need to join the group before receiving permission to post.
  • This group may not be open to posting.

If you have questions related to this or any other Google Group, visit the Help Center at https://support.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/bin/topic.py?topic=25838.

It's also inappropriate to host records about potential Wikimedia Foundation abuse on third party tools such as a Google Group. Please replace the email address with a functioning address corresponding to an OTRS queue. --Nemo 14:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for catching that glitch and for letting us know, Nemo. This is now fully functional. Kalliope (WMF) (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


why Alison0lapoint (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Große Änderung gestern am 19.2.2019

Gestern hat Kbrown (WMF) sehr umfangreiche Änderungen auf der Vorderseite durchgeführt. Wo genau wurden die diskutiert und von der Gemeinschaft konsentiert? Welche konkreten Auswirkungen haben die, ind wo wurden diese Auswirkungen diskutiert?
For the anglocentrics: Yesterday Kbrown (WMF) changed quite a lot on the other side. Where were those massive changes discussed and agreed upon by the community before implementation? What are the effects of this and where were those effects discussed?
Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 21:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sänger, vielen Dank, dass du dich an uns gewendet hast. Die Änderungen der Office Action Policy wurden nicht vorab mit der Community besprochen. Deshalb konntest du und konnten andere diese Diskussionen auch nicht finden. Die Office Actions Policy ist eine Wikimedia Foundation Policy und legt den Handlungsspielrahmen der Foundation in diesen Bereichen so transparent wie möglich offen. Sie wird von der Foundation gesetzt, die letzten Änderungen sind ein Ergebnis unseres Jahresplans 2018-19, der letzten März veröffentlicht wurde.
Was den Effekt dieser Änderungen betrifft, so hoffen wir dass die angepasste Policy uns erlaubt ggf. weniger einschneidende Konsequenzen bei Verletzungen der ToU zu ergreifen (verglichen mit einem dauerhaften Foundation Global), wenn es eine realistische Chance gibt, dass der betroffene Freiwillige an anderen Stellen in anderer Form weiterhin beitragen kann und zwar so, dass es unwahrscheinlich ist, dass er die Verletzungen der ToU wiederholt, die dazu geführt haben, dass Office Actions nötig wurden.
Du kannst die Policy und ihre Auswirkungen gerne hier auf der Diskussionsseite diskutieren, aber bitte sei dir bewusst, dass dies eine Foundation Policy mit rechtlichen Implikationen ist und deshalb die Tatsache, dass etwas hier diskutiert oder vorgeschlagen wird nicht notwendigerweise bedeutet, dass die Foundation dies entsprechend umsetzen kann. WMFOffice (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Da die Stiftung nur eine Serviceagentur der Community ist, und daher nur ausführen kann und sollte, was der eigentliche Souverän, die Community, möchte, erfordern wichtige Änderungen an z.B. den ToU o.ä. unbedingt eine vorherige Konsultation der Communities, ohne eine solche sind sie schlicht nicht das Papier wert, auf dem sie stehen. Die WMF ist keinesfall so etwas wie die Chefs des Wikiversums, das wäre völlig daneben, sie ist nur ein notwendiges Übel, weil die Community sich in der aktuellen Größe nicht mehr komplett selber organisieren kann.
Die umseitigen Änderungen, so sie tatsächlich ohne jeden Community-Input vorgenommen worden sind, sind also asap zu revertieren, weil sie ohne jede legitime Grundlage erstellt wurden.
Die WMF ist auf gar keinen Fall Chef des Wikiversums, sie ist einzig und allein eine Serviceagentur. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 18:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
For the anglocentrics: As the Foundatios is only a servie agency for the community, and should only implement what was asked for by only valid sovereign here, the community, such important changes like the ToU or such require a consultation of the communities beforehand. Without community consultation such changes are not worth the paper, they are written on. The WMF is in no way the boss of the Wikiverse, that would be a travesty, it's just a necessary evil, because the community was too big to organise completely by itself.
If the changes on the other side really were made without any community input, they are simply invalid and without any legitimate base, so they should be reverted asap.
The WMF is in no way the boss of the universe, it's only a service agency. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 18:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Und eine der ersten Aktionen nach den neuen, unabgesprochenen Änderungen von Oben gegen die da unten endete gleich im Desaster mit en:WP:FRAM. Das kommt davon, wenn eine abgehobene Bürokratie ohne Bindung zur Community per ordre de Mufti versucht zu herrschen anstatt das zu tun, wofür sie da ist: der Community, die sie ja schlussendlich durch die vom von ihr erstellten Inhalt generierten Spenden bezahlt, zu dienen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
For the anglocentrics: And one of the first actions after this not consented changes from the High Society against the unwashed masses was the disaster of en:WP:FRAM. The's what's supposed to happen if some detached bureaucracy without connection to the community tries to rule by top brass orders instead of doing what it's supposed to do: Serve the community, who in the end pays them with the money generated by the content they provide.


This parameter inside the section div's is causing horizontal scrolling, looks like it improves with 99% - any other suggestions to improve the layout? — xaosflux Talk 03:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If you take out the 100% width statements it still occurs, seems to have an affinity to the header itself. Are you seeing that wherever that header type is used?  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I'm only getting it in the areas with "Expand" controls such as Primary office actions. See example at m:User:Xaosflux/sandbox5, where when I changed that one section from 100% to 99% it works for me now, but the other sections still cause a horizontal scroll. — xaosflux Talk 18:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yep, see your issue. I have a copy at m:User:Billinghurst/Office actions sandbox (stripped of languages/translations/artefacts) with which to play. But not now.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Anchors, best to correspond to section name

@The Devil's Advocate: I am not sure that such a label is particularly productive. I have created an id that corresponds to the section name "Partial Foundation ban" to which you can anchor.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Name change to "Wikimedia Foundation office actions"

Currently this topic is titled "office actions". I would like to change it to "Wikimedia Foundation office actions" to make clear that this is a process which the Wikimedia Foundation controls without dependency on Wikimedia community permission. Any objections or comments? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think a location change would make more sense. It should reside at wmf:Office actions. –xeno 14:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Xeno: The WMF wiki is a place for the WMF to post things without hosting wiki community discussion. The conversations here on this talk page, for example, could not happen in the wmf space. I presume there is some misunderstanding - you are not suggesting that all these conversations stop, are you?
Also I am not sure that centralization works because this topic is in 10 places right now as listed at d:Q11098188. If the concept is on multiple wiki projects then a meta page seems worthwhile.
Can you comment further about the advantages you see from moving anything to the wmf space? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
WMF has taken direct control of the page (without any form of "wiki community discussion", see #Large expansion in June 2017 above), so it should reside on the WMF project to avoid giving the impression that the page overleaf is approved, endorsed, or supported by the community, or indeed even subject to the consensus/wiki process. Convert it to an information page afterwards. –xeno 16:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Xeno: I see. Your view seems to be that the WMF has overriding control of some pages on various Wikimedia projects, like this page on meta, and that their text and perspective and control of the conversation takes precedent over what the Wikimedia community might do. Perhaps we should have a template on pages where this is the case. I am not sure that this office action page should be a place under WMF control, or at least, if it is, then maybe the page titled "office actions" should be for the meta community here and another page "Wikimedia Foundation office action policy" can be the one where the WMF does what they chose, and we put that "WMF control" template on it, but the meta community here still has some regulatory power as with anything on meta. If the WMF choses to put content on the wmf wiki then of course that is totally outside of community engagement.
Does that sound closer to the way you think things ought to be? Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, yes that's the situation. I support the name change as a second choice to the location change. –xeno 12:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The WMF has usurped powers and made this changes without any community input, a pure power grab. This here is a community project, and such pages as this one here imply that it's a community consensed page. As it's not such thing, but some stuff that was imposed as a rule by top brass orders, it should be hosted on that non-community page where this non-community decision was taken, and here should only some information about this decisions. These office actions are not anything like community actions, since at least Framgate they showed, that some are explicitely anti-community actions. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
P.S.: As the boss of T&S is someone with an explicit anti-community history, I don't think this is something really surprising. At least I can't remember any apology from Jan Eissfeld for his aggressive behaviour against the community with his involvement in the war by some rogue members of the WMF against the deWP and enWP with Superputsch. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sänger: I prefer to chill the complaining and look forward. It seems like it would make you happy to declare this page as a documentation page for the Wikimedia community so let's start by thinking here. Let me think about this a bit more, look at the history, and I will give a go at rearrangement and making it entirely clear that this is the Wikimedia community's own page for community documentation and presentation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Every time the WMF manages again to make some mayor snafu, it's something along the lines of chill the complaining and look forward. But without looking at unsolved problems from the past, you won't get things right in the future. If I see someone, who definitely was a villain in the superputsch-disaster, suddenly as head of "Trust and Safety" the only thing that come to my mind about this travesty is sarcasm and the loss of any good faith left over about the learning capabilities of the WMF. They seem to ber completely detached from the communities they are supposed to serve. And they are supposed to serve, not to lead, the lead is just for the communities. The WMF is a service agency for the Wikiverse for stuff, that can't be done (properly) by the volunteers.
If I look at the possibilities to learn about snafus in relation to the communities, like the first implementation of VE, like the bullying and utter hostility with MV, like the ignorant and deliberately lying attitude to push FLOW, like just now the Fram disaster, and the obviously deliberate not-willing-to-learn-anything-attitude by the detached ivory tower in SF, I really don't have much AGF left. It's always just window dressing, marketing blah-blah, never ever anything of substance, that derives from this disaster, that were all inflicted on the Wikiverse with the sole responsibility of the WMF.
This here is again a fine example of arrogance and detachedness by the WMF, to decude such stuff without any community input, as pure exercise of power and bullying. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sänger: I ask you to not complain because you are preaching to the choir. If you feel strongly about this, then why not list these events on this office action page? I expect that everyone here would agree that the actions you describe were WMF Office actions of the sort the Wikimedia Community wants logged. To get things started I made the below template {{Community}} and posted it to the top of this page. I also removed the template which says that this page is an official Wikimedia Foundation policy.
I doubt that any Wikimedia Foundation person cares about this change, but if they do, then we can split this into two articles - one for the WMF and one for the Wikimedia community. I am curious to identify other places on Meta-Wiki which are rumored to be under WMF editing prohibition. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I changed my mind about removing the "official policy" part. I do not see anything here which justifies calling this an official policy, because the text here is so out of sync with the actual practice of office actions. I removed the "official" template because the text on this page says, "The Foundation does not hold editorial or supervisory control over content and conduct in the Wikimedia projects", which obviously, if there is a prohibition on the community editing this page, then the WMF would be holding editorial and supervisory control here on this page and topic of great interest to community editorial process. Perhaps someone at the WMF should clarify if the "official" templates are signifiers that the Wikimedia community is under editorial prohibition. Something seems strange here - the content where there is a prohibition should probably be on the WMF site, and Meta-Wiki should be a place for Wikimedia community editorial control. I will let this sit here for a bit. If a WMF staffer reacts then let's see what they say. If there is no reaction then maybe we should have a general community discussion about the guidelines for WMF prohibitions on the Wikimedia community editing content in its own spaces. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
It's true the page title should contain "Wikimedia Foundation" somewhere, but the term "office action" itself is a misnomer or convenient nickname. "Office" has no legal meaning.
After the 2016 version, the page became so bloated as to be practically useless. The collapsed sections don't help accessibility either. There's no reason that can't be fixed by having a normal page co-existing with the WMF staff's own point of view on the matter, which can be in its own subsection. The actual policy text is not here but in Terms of use (binding on everyone) and m:Legal/Legal Policies (internal policy binding on WMF staff; possibly forgotten by current staff, but never rescinded as far as we know). Nemo 00:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Log of office actions

Is it correct that there is no published log of office actions? I understand that perhaps some actions may be private and some may be public, but regardless, there is no way for anyone to browse office actions, is there? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Office actions which are global bans are listed at m:WMF Global Ban Policy/List and the WMFOffice log. Office page locks have lists per-project, I think. I don't know if temporary blocks or warnings are logged anywhere. --Yair rand (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I see, so it seems to be the case that if there is an automatically generated record as in the case of an action from the WMFOffice log account, or in the extraordinary circumstance of a WMF global ban which gets special manual listing, then we have records here on meta. For other WMF office actions on meta, we do not have records, and on other Wikimedia projects, we have pages with no particular standard process. I am thinking about asking for a rule that the Wikimedia community and the WMF have an agreement that if the community recognizes WMF ability to execute office actions, then the WMF should have to log when it takes those and not take them in private. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
All office actions (meaning those listed on this page) are logged by the MediaWiki software, as it would be if any other account made those actions. If you request a centralized meta-wiki page for an office actions log, I would support that, but there are no private office actions that you speak of. Vermont (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Definition of office action

Sometimes WMF staff take actions with the following characteristics:

  1. Assertion of highest authority
  2. Acting in official capacity of the WMF and not as individual
  3. Creating an accessible record optional, when the wiki norm is to make a record
  4. Taking a strong action on-wiki (e.g. deleting content, forbidding an activity)
  5. May place a prohibition against discussing the action
  6. All this happens through an informal process

@Vermont: You say above there are no private office actions. The activity which I am describing here is either an office action or a description of some yet unnamed power. I came to this meta page to develop the guideline on regulating activities of this sort, as they seemed like "office actions" to me.

Sanger above imagines that the user revolts against SuperProtect, MediaViewer, Fram case, etc were also office actions despite those WMF actions not being private. Vermont, do you have any suggestion for where to discuss this kind of activity? Are these office actions, or do we need another page to outline other asserted WMF powers? Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

An office action is generally understood to be something the WMF has some degree of legal obligation to perform. Otherwise it wouldn't have any legitimacy. Technical decisions and m:Limits to configuration changes are something completely different, they are "political" decisions (generally made with some varying degree of co-decision between various places of the Wikimedia projects and initiated by us rather than by some external request). Nemo 12:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Could you give examples of these informal, accessible record optional, strong actions onwiki? Vermont (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I have one in mind but "May place a prohibition against discussing the action". If such an activity existed, would it be an office action or something else? Is there an outline of WMF powers somewhere? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The outline of onwiki Office actions as preformed by T&S/the office pursuant to the ToU is this page. However, I'm not sure there's a log of when the WMF has forbidden discussion, and I'm also not sure if that's ever happened. Considering how conservatively Office actions are (usually) used, I don't think it would be necessary, as its very rarely that we have editors clamoring to unblock someome who, say, uploaded child pornography. Vermont (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) From my experience, Office actions tend to be quite formal procedures with many people reviewing an action, and I've yet to see an action that does not conform to the policy here. Of course, they have changed the policy. (notably partial bans) I will also note that Office actions, in this context, are not all actions made by the office; it is onwiki action pursuant to the Terms of Use/law. Regards, Vermont (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that is a great way of summarizing all the content here. I think I will slow down and reflect a bit as there is no urgent present need for change. I like the idea of reserving the term "office action" for things like legal mandate. Maybe it could refer to global bans. I am going to think more about what types of powers might exist, how we categorize them, and where we can discuss them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Concept of WMF prohibition on page editing

I posted {{community}} on this page. @Vermont: removed it. That's fine - I appreciate the editing and reversion cycle. I think the removal of this template is an indication that the Wikimedia community has no obvious place to produce its own documentation of WMF office actions.

This page "office actions" might be a page which only the WMF edits and where there is a community prohibition on editing. If it is, then maybe we should have a guide on what this means and a category for all such pages.

The general situation is that I want to have a page to describe certain WMF powers which seem to be "office actions". Perhaps there is a community prohibition on editing this page, and perhaps only the WMF can edit this page. If that is the case, the circumstance is not clear. Meta-Wiki seems to be a Wikimedia community space. We have tools, like adminstrative locks, which apply technical restrictions to page editing. We have a process for applying those technical locks.

I do not think we have a process for applying WMF-mandated social locks. A template could work if that is matched with some published policy.

Here are some reasons why the Wikimedia community would want to edit pages on Meta-Wiki:

  1. Meta-Wiki purports to be a Wikimedia community project, and nominally, the Wikimedia community should have editorial control here
  2. When the WMF publishes content here, like this "Office action" page, by being in Meta-Wiki the content purports to be under Wikimedia community editorial control unless there is some unusual exception.
  3. Keeping certain pages in Wikimedia projects under WMF control, especially indiscriminately, creates strange power structures, secrets, and a culture of conflict.

This office action page, for example, has the appearance of presenting Wikimedia community consensus following the usual editorial process. In fact, the WMF asserts some control over this page and operates it in the guise of Wikimedia community consensus. There are various WMF-maintained pages presenting information as Wikimedia community consensus, when in fact there are substantial barriers to Wikimedia community discussion on those topics.

There must be some way to communicate clearly who controls what pages, where Wikimedia community members may discuss and curate content, and how anyone can access WMF information when they are seeking that particular perspective. I am not sure how all this looks but the current system fails to achieve these characteristics. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

If you want to write a separate essay about types of office actions, and where WMF-mandated locks (?) fit in, then that is within Meta's scope. But this page is a documentation of the WMF's office action policy, and I don't see the need for any of that here. Nor do I see any indication that the community is somehow restricted from editing this page. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe he was right to remove it. The page was/is not maintained by "The Wikimedia Community." So the template was misleading. – Ammarpad (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz and Ammarpad: Hey guys, at Meta:Babel#Semi-protection_of_certain_pages_related_to_WMF_and_policies Yair rand points out that at m:Category:Maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation there is the note that "Inclusion in this category is NOT meant to imply that others cannot also participate in maintaining the content", and further states that the Wikimedia community can edit anything on meta to present its own views. How clear is all of this, and does anyone disagree? If there are multiple views or a need for clarity then I could start a new meta page to present the views, centralize discussion, find consensus, and eventually present our policy. Can anyone clarify the extent to which purpose of this page is to present the perspective of the Wikimedia community on Wikimedia Foundation office actions? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Usefull Trust and Safety ! For global bans only

I had to ask help from Trust & Safety. If I needed them, it's because the local community did not manage properly the events.

That's why I am for the global ban, but not for the partial ban: When it is so bad that the WMF that must act, it is because the situation is really badly managed at the local level. Victims deserve peace, contributors deserve an environment free of toxicity. The unblocable VIP that end up blocked by the WMF deserve it amply, and the victims of these attackers deserve to know that it is taken seriously. Final.--Idéalités (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Löschung des Artikel de:Reinhard Baumhögger

Der Artikel wurde ohne jede Begründung per Office Action gelöscht, diesbezügliche Anfragen der natürlich eher überraschten und tatsächlich zuständigen Community der deWP wurden ohne Angabe von Gründen abgebügelt. Hier wurde in einem undurchsichtigen Hinterzimmer eine inhaltliche Entscheidung getroffen, an den betroffenen AutorInnen vorbei. Es gab zu dem Artikel schon mehrere Löschdiskussionen in dem dafür zuständigen Bereich: LD 17.01.2018, LAE, LD 19.01.2018, auch LAE, LP 21.01.2018, Bleibt. Dazu, nach der überraschenden OA, einen Kurierartikel, und die zugehörige Diskussion. Nirgends gab es eine Reaktion derjenigen, die das zu verantworten haben, auch auf Nachfragen von deWP-AutorInnen gab es keinerlei sachdienliche Hinweise zu diesem anti-enzyklpädischen Vorgehen. Hier wurde augenscheinlich ohne jede Konsultation der zuständigen Community und ohne auch nur den Ansatz einer Begründung inhaltlich Fakten geschaffen. Dieses Vorgehen dient nicht der Vertrauensbildung zwischen den Chefs des Wikiversums, den Communities, und deren angestellten Mitarbeitern, die den Communities zu dienen haben, nämlich der WMF.
Ich erwarte eine Begründung für dieses klandestine und augenscheinlich antiwikipedianische Vorgehen, vielleicht gibt es ja doch eine tragfähige Begründung, nur ist da halt absolut kein Ansatz zu erkennen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


Shouldn't the policy be categorized under m:Category:Global policies? --jdx Re: 20:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done definitely should be categorised somewhere.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)