Wikipedia talk:Office actions/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Talk:NewsMax Media/Newstuff, Talk:Christopher_Ruddy/Newstuff

Why are these pages still protected? Why do they even still exist? The cheeky and completely useless message inviting us to discuss a talk page "on the talk page" doesn't exactly help. The protection log reads:

Protected Talk:Christopher Ruddy/Newstuff: transcluded content for talkpage - this content may not be amended - under WP:OFFICE rules and watch [edit=sysop:move=sysop]

If indeed "this content may not be amended", what the hell is it doing on Wikipedia? Is it even licensed under the GFDL? We're screwed if it's not, and I think the best thing to do is delete it. Now. It's clear that it's not of use to anyone – and, frankly, we don't want information that's going to be stuck in a subpage, protected with the oh-so-scary "OFFICE ACTION DO NOT EDIT THIS OR ELSE" message and then left to rot, even if it was useful. This is a wiki – Gurch 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wonder if "do not amend" equals "do not delete"? I imagine it probably does, but maybe someone could elaborate further. Kaldari 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If I remember right, those two pages were the last content before they were Office'd and rewritten, so whatever libel/SPAM/vandalism got them in trouble in the first place is still there to read, if a little hidden. 68.39.174.238 00:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nyet. Those were what newsmax thought the articles should look like.Geni 00:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that solves that! Those were I think the oldest and possibly original Office'd pages... 68.39.174.238 15:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not even close.Geni 00:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Noone bothered to keep a running record before Jumbo created this page. 68.39.174.238 14:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Privacy template

In this section of the policy:

** This is the reason for {{blp}}, {{db-attack}}, {{db-copyvio}} and {{privacy}}: The less time the less of such material is present, the less the legal risk for the Foundation and the less harm done to people.

Is it supposed to be {{Privacy protection}}? daveh4h 22:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yess... sorry about that. 68.39.174.238 04:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Johann Hari

Would someone please clue us in on Johann Hari? The article was WP:OFFICE protected, then unprotected, then re-protected again, without the slightest hint of guidance as to what is going on or what is expected of editors on this article. -- 67.98.206.2 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to complain about an Office Action, the best thing to do is to, well, complain to the Office. Without having any specific knowledge about this case, one thing I can tell you is that it's often not a good idea to publicize the specific circumstances that lead to an Office Action. There are often legal reasons for Office Actions. szyslak 23:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There does not need to be a hint of guidance to the editors of the article, the only thing that is expected of them is to let the Office work with the article and take a step back from it if possible. Cbrown1023 talk 23:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand all that. I'm just hoping we aren't expected to figure out what to do though some semaphore system of edit/lock charades. -- 67.98.206.2 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In a high-level miscommunication (EG. One that leads to "charades"), it may be best (but not easiest) to just wait for the disputants to settle things out. If it ends up unprotected, keep editing, if it ends up protected, wait for it to be unprotected and maybe start work on a new version of the articel or find some sources if they look like they're going to blank and reset it. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The explanation says "Contact an administrator to make changes". How is that any different to normal full protection? – Gurch 16:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oly difference is the prot shouldn't be removed by a normal admin in the normal way. Rich Farmbrough, 10:53 12 March 2008 (GMT).

I think the office should at least clue us in why they deleted/protected a page. We are not mindless slaves here, and if it weren't for us, Wikipedia would not be where it is now. Editorofthewiki 00:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Amnon Yitzhak

(I couldn't find a better place to put it on Meta, so i am putting here. If anyone can suggest a better place, please tell me.)

A WP:OFFICE-like action was performed in the Hebrew Wikipedia: the article about Amnon Yitzhak was deleted and salted, because Yitzhak's attorney allegedly sent a letter with a legal threat to Wikimedia Israel.

I understand that there are circumstances in which a WP:OFFICE action is the only reasonable solution. However, while i am not a legal expert, to the best of my knowledge the situation with that article in Hebrew wasn't anywhere near that. Maybe i am wrong; but in any case, this was done autonomously by the bureaucrats of the Hebrew Wikipedia and not by the Foundation's Office.

I am sincerely sorry to be a "schtinker". That's a Yiddish word for "informer". The bureaucrats of the Hebrew Wikipedia are excellent contributors, thanks to whom the Hebrew Wikipedia is one of the very best WMF projects. But i am quite sure that they made a mistake in this case. Wikipedia should not censor out sourced material after one feeble legal threat so easily. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Got a new one, please confirm?

The article in question is Greg Ryan (soccer). Can you give any explanation(s)? (See Category:Office_protected or the article in question). -iaNLOPEZ1115 · TaLKBaCK · Vandalize it 06:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor that made that action does not appear to be involved with the WMF, to which the ability to make office actions is generally reserved. I'm going to hunt Cary down and find out about this; it may well be that Vishal, who, according to the page history, made the protection, is a WMF officer—it's simply that, I have never encountered him/her.

As an interesting side note, Vishal does not appear to have administrator privileges... Goodness knows how he managed to protect a page, but he has done so. AGK (contact) 11:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped Bastique a note; hopefully he'll be able to shed some light on the matter. AGK (contact) 11:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is (or was at the time of taking the Office action). Daniel (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There's your answer, Ianlopez ;) Thanks, Daniel. AGK (contact) 12:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I say "was" per this edit and this. Daniel (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Presumably he's no longer with the WMF after the move. Thanks for clearing that up. AGK (contact) 13:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE is always temporary, an emergency action

Perhaps we should insert an editorial [intended as to be] there? Rich Farmbrough, 17:44 12 March 2008 (GMT).

I don't think I'm qualified enough on this topic to comment either way, but here's a related suggestion: go ahead, be bold and do it ;) It's a wiki! AGK § 20:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Has there ever been a permanent Office action? —{admin} Pathoschild 12:41:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The closest thing that comes to mind is the infamous Ohioan sex offender, and that seemed to be more like Jumbo getting annoyed at endless AfD <-> DRV cycle. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

someone should show Jimbo a Venn diagram

If there is no rollback of NPOV, then why can't the article be dealt with by the "Office" acting as a Wiki mortal reverting under NPOV (or some other policy like RS)? If "Office actions" are 100% subsumed within the application range of NPOV, then, according to a Venn diagram, "Office actions" are entirely unnecessary, by virtue of their redundance. If the overlap is not 100%, NPOV and "Office actions" necessarily conflict.Bdell555 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict:

—{admin} Pathoschild 23:59:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really follow Bdell555's comment, but how could "due to lack of attention" and "due to disputes" overlap? --Maxamegalon2000 01:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Some disputes are prolonged by lack of attention; that's why asking for a third opinion is one of the steps in the dispute resolution process. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:55:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, why can't whoever is wielding the OFFICE power correct the "bias" by applying NPOV in the use of "routine" editing powers? Because ordinary editing can be "disputed"? Why would there be a dispute if the article is NPOV?Bdell555 (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Because NPOV is subjective? --Conti|✉ 22:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think that it would be a fundamental assumption of Wikipedia that NPOV both should be applied and can be applied.Bdell555 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but common sense is distressingly uncommon. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 22:59:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, OFFICE actions may be necessary, but I'd dispute that there is no "rollback" of NPOV. This article says an OFFICE action may be undertaken as a "courtesy" to someone. I would think NPOV means "no courtesies".Bdell555 (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Office actions may be considered an extreme and temporary form of protection. Like all edits and protection, the intent is to preserve NPOV and specifically guard against potentially harmful POV edits. However, the office actions are necessary because they warn admins that this particular violation has been deemed egregious by the office and that they must be careful in their attempts to rebuild the article. Any admin can do something similar to an office edit, but they can't get across the same seriousness with their edits. Eebster the Great (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Office actions, when they involve NPOV (EG. Not copyright violations), are just POV removals that are done to prevent legal trouble. They ARE redundant to POV cleanups, and wouldn't be necessary if all NPOV disputes/backlogged articels were cleaned up. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, by "courtesy" I think they mean: "This may or may not be libelous (if it went to court), but we will give them the benefit of the doubt and {{reset}} it. If it comes back the same, with sources, then they'll have to take their case up with the sources." 76.117.247.55 (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"or personal harm"

I believe "prevent legal trouble" should be sufficient here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#the_slippery_slope_of_having_a_.22distress.22_policy_over_and_above_a_reliable_source_policy for a fuller discussion of why i think "harm" should not be a consideration.

"questionable or illegal" should also be restricted to "illegal"

If there were a consensus for these restrictions, could the WP:OFFICE policy be changed in reflection of the consensus? Bdell555 (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Quality versions

Hiho, I am mainly active on the German Wikipedia, where there will be a test run for above feature in the near future. Now, there is considerable discontent among a group of editors, who are, for various reasons, opposed to that feature (if you like, I would be glad to outline those reasons here or at the talk page of quality versions). Vulgo: There isn't anything that even comes close to "consensus", I don't know the magnitude of the dissent in quantity terms, of course. Now, in order to gauge the support for that policy, I made a request for deletion, which was, despite obvious discontent on the issue thwarted within minutes, with the page being blocked and I myself, too (I was later unblocked). In the Chat, I was told that this policy will be introduced per WP:OFFICE. Now my question: Is there any documentation: when and how this decision was made? I would like to document that decision, so that there won't be any future futile RfDs, but, naturally, also, because I want to debunk such decision making on core policy issues. Thanks in advance. Fossa_?! 17:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no plans by the Foundation to do that, having asked Cary Bass to make sure. He noted "what the hell?" and pointed out that Wikipedia:Office actions is an English Wikipedia policy on article content, and has nothing to do with flagged revisions. (However, the local German Wikipedia community may decide to implement it based on the idea of this policy.) —{admin} Pathoschild 00:18:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that info, I got a different information in WP:Chat from a different board memmber. My apologies, I'm a bit at loss, where to dig, as to where and when the decision was made. I took up a lead, which seems to be proven wrong. If you have any idea, whom I should ask, I would be grateful. Fossa_?! 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that OA has no provision for being used to force policies, it's just there to explain when sometimes an articel has to be blanked and restarted. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy standards

In the interest of standardization of policies, templates, and categories, I am proposing the notice box above this page be changed to the boilerplate common to other policies, plus a briefer version of its current text (brackets may be cut):

• This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page. This page is also a Wikimedia official policy, [established by Jimmy Wales and] endorsed by the Foundation as necessary for the operation of the sites under its jurisdiction.
• Another version of the last sentence might be this from two other policies, if it's a true statement and it's closer to the intent: The main Wikimedia Foundation policy on this topic has been decided on the Meta namespace and nothing here may override that policy without approval there.

I trust there would be no objection to returning to the standard {{policy}} template and boilerplate if the current distinctive text is also maintained. Please let me know the most accurate way to state the distinction. JJB 10:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But the {{policy}} template doesn't have that language...? —Centrx→talk • 18:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeat published allegations?

I'm writing up a book by Norman Finkelstein "The Holocaust Industry". It's quite well known according to Google Scholar, having 98 citations and 16 translations.

But the book names people and questions their judgement - which is often much of the point of the story. I think I've managed to keep it harmless, eg "Finkelstein describes (Elie) Wiesel's account of resigning from the conference chair as 'bizarre'", "Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres dismissed ... extermination of Armenians as mere 'allegations,'" Abe Foxman: "Upon reflection, the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide", and "the most "insidious" forms of Holocaust denial are "immoral equivalencies", denying the uniqueness of The Holocaust, according to Deborah Lipstadt".

Perhaps more serious, Bernard Lewis is described as the "only one truly mainstream holocaust denier" (him having been convicted and fined 1Euro for denying the Armenian genocide). I was planning to quote Finkelstein as saying The Painted Bird (Jerzy Kosinksi) and Fragments (Binjamin Wilkomirski) are totally false - and name those who give them glowing reviews.

Finkelstein says very harsh things about a new book Hitler's Willing Executioners by Daniel Johnah Goldhagen and I was planning to repeat some of them. Goldhagen originally threatened to sue him and his co-writer, Bird, I don't think anything came of it, and all the claims and counter-claims are up on Finkelstein's web-site.

None of it should be problematical, but I wanted to let people know what I was doing. Please move this posting elsewhere if it's in the wrong place. When I'm ready with more additions, I may come back and put them up here before posting them. PR^talk 10:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Office deletions?

Should a list of Office deletions be listed here also? Such as the recent Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_13#Image:Wikimediafoundationheadquarters.jpg_.28closed.29 --Pmsyyz (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added that to the "currently under office scrutiny" based on Cary's communication. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible template misuse

Romancoke, Maryland was recently tagged with {{pp-office}} by an anonymous editor who only made that one edit. I'm not sure how this article would be under scrutiny. I'm assuming this is just misuse of a template by a vandal, but just to be on the safe side I'm asking here if it's OK to remove the template.-Jeff ^(talk) 19:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The office tag is no different than any other protection tag: If an IP applies it, and it's not protected, it's likely a fraud. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

List

Is there a list of when past office actions occurred? One that just says, for example, when plagiarized/libelous/whatever material was removed from such-and-such an article (not repeating the libel/spreading the plagiary/etc., obviously)? There should be. Interests of openness and all that. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Try the page history. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Small typo but considering the nature of the nature of the page I don't want just to change it.

First sentence of "Short Explanation" says a openly"... should of course be "an openly".

SiTrew 2009-Jan-26 1751 GMT

 Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly this image should be Officed?

File:Flag burning.jpg Rich Farmbrough, 13:53 23 May 2009 (UTC).

Looks like the deletion discussion is favoring deletion. That'll likely be closed soon anyhow. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

On that subject...

Should there be a way to bring such matters to the Office's attention, by a 3rd person (EG. Someone pointing them to OA, or Emailing an Officer about it)? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contact us and m:Contact us. —Centrx→talk • 18:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Legal?

Are office actions only performed when there is a legal threat (copyright, libel), or does this extend beyond, into other methods of protecting Wikipedia from external threats?    M   02:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Category discussion

This page might get a new policy category; the discussion is at WP:VPP#Wikipedia administrative policy. - Dank (push to talk) 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead links

All four external links at Wikipedia:Office actions#Mailing list messages are dead. Art LaPella (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

IANAL ...

At the village pump, someone just pointed out that a company is using our favicon on their website, but we don't know if that's a legal problem or what. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 23:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That should be reported to the Foundation, probably by "Contact Wikipedia" link. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Soft redirect

If this is a meta policy and the "live" policy is on meta, should this be just changed to a soft redirect? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind; misread something above. Question: Should it be anyway? Presumably WMF could need to do this on any wiki (EG. The French quote site). 76.117.247.55 (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be, since it also contains a list of pages that are currently affected by Office actions. --Alx xlA (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Wikimedia official policy" applicable to projects in other languages?

What is "Wikimedia official policy" supposed to mean? Is it really "endorsed by the Foundation as ecessary for the operation of the sites under its jurisdiction"? Since this policy in English Wikipedia apparently says so, someone has translated it to Japanese and is trying to introduce it as a offical policy in Japanese Wikipedia. However, I doubt that the Foundation wants to take "Office Actions" in Japanese Wikipedia in the manner prescribed here. I am not sure how many of the persons listed in the "Who initiates office actions" section knows Japanese (language), but very few of them seem to have an active user account in projects in Japanese. Do you really want this policy translated in all Wikimedia projects?--Dwy (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand this in practice

A user has removed WP:OFFICE from Texas Instruments signing key controversy‎ on the grounds that the page is no longer listed here. Is that correct--is including that key on the page, or more likely and importantly, linking to pages that include, now purely a matter of editorial discretion?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Until someone sends a DMCA counter notice to the Foundation, that article has to remain under office protection indefinitely. It looks like it was removed from the Under Scrutiny section by User:Sophie, who is now indefinitely blocked. Unless anyone knows otherwise, I'm putting it back under protection. By the way, it's VERY EASY to send a counter-notice to the Foundation. Kaldari (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I am not going to be able to get any other way to say this, I should clear my name on this issue. I did that edit because at the time, there wasnt any form of notice on the page. No black padlock, no ambox notice (link this). It was removed by User:58.0.119.209 in this edit on the 13th of June, I did my edit on the 15th. 2 days after it was removed. Any other person going to WP:Office and then to that page would think the same thing that it was no longer an issue so would update the page. On another matter, it happend in June. why did it take till December to notice? 78.144.222.205 (talk) For Sophie 00:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the WMF General Council, not from some farcical anonymous vandalism. Kaldari (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

DMCA take downs and oversighters

See Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#DMCA_take_downs . --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

SOPA initiative vs this policy

The SOPA initiative seems to be an exception to this policy, being an office action that temporarily disrupted all of Wikipedia. There's a lengthy discussion at WT:POINT on how the action confuses behavioral guidelines such as WP:POINT.

Seems that this policy would be changed to address such office actions. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The SOPA initiative was a community action, not an office action. Kaldari (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Limits of office actions?

Reading this policy, it seems that the Foundation has pretty much unlimited power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It seems that we need limits regarding what the Foundation can and can't do. Perhaps a provision requiring the Foundation to explain office actions to the community and give the community a chance to talk about them? ChromaNebula (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You have to remember, they own the website and write the software. If they get in trouble, everybody gets in trouble. Whats good for them is good for us. Swordman97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In many cases, remember, Office actions are things that by necessity can not be publicly discussed - either sealed court orders, or issues of libel or other things that may result in legal action if they become public. OFFICE actions are not used everyday - there have been very very few of them, historically, and they are not taken lightly. An office action requires the approval of one of a small number of people, and we are very very reticent to issue them. I'm afraid this is one of those cases where we just have to ask you to trust us. We explain them as much as we can, but sometimes, we just can't. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Damon Dash

Can you provide more information as to why the legal office issued a block for the Damon Dash article? When will the block removed. Can someone share with us, what exactly happened?--214.27.58.2 (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Dash contacted us through legal counsel with some concerns that the legal team evidently felt were valid, or we were not in a position to fight at the time. I'm sorry, but I can't be more specific than that. I have no information as to when the block will be removed. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)