Wikipedia talk:Office actions

Contacting the office

I think there ought to be a link on the policy page, either by directly including an email address or by linking to a page that clearly notes how to contact the office. Further up this page Wikipedia:Contact us, but nowhere on that page or its specific subpages does the word "office" appear so it is not at all useful for someone looking for how to contact the office. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That's actually on purpose. In almost every case where someone thinks that they need to contact the office, they're wrong. The truth is, the volunteer community handles the vast majority of the types of inquiries that the office gets. It's more useful for everyone involved if we route them based on issue, rather than where the correspondent THINKS that the end result will be. They're usually wrong, and we end up redirecting them to OTRS or whomever, and it actually slows down the process of getting them the help they want.  :-) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In which case there should be a link on this page to the contact us page with a note (here and/or there) saying that correspondence will be handled by the office, legal team, community liaison, OTRS, etc. based on the specific issue. That way someone who thinks they want the office and scanning for how to do so will find that these are the contact details for the office. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Senford High School

Already e-mailed the legal, but anyway really a court order? I seriously doubt that. --209.188.40.228 (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

According to this website the fraud case concluded in August 2012. Let's hope legal can find out if the court order is no longer in force, or will be lifted soon.

• http://www.gedtestingservice.com/fraudprotection/

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Jalexander-WMF's edit this February removed Senford High School from the "currently under scrutiny" list. In that case, should the protection be removed from Senford High School? —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just come here to ask the same question. @Mdennis (WMF):. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: @Mx. Granger: thanks, apologies for not responding in June it looks like I missed the ping. You're right that this does, indeed, mean that create protection can be removed. In order to make it obvious to watchers I just did that myself. Jalexander--WMF 23:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jalexander-WMF: thank you (although your ping didn't work for me so I'll try a @Mx. Granger: in case it didn't work for them either). Thryduulf (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad this has been figured out. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist threat

What if, on Wikipedia, somebody threatens terrorism or does something which does not directly threaten Wikipedia as such, but a state, a city, or a nation as a whole? Is an office action taken then, too? --Eu-151 (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The Office, or any other interested person, can alert the proper authorities about a threat of real-world violence. The emergency e-mail can be used to alert the Office to such a situation. Any administrator can do what is necessary to deal with the on-wiki aspect, such as by rev-deleting the threat, semiprotecting a page, or doing whatever else is appropriate. A checkuser may be performed in some cases to locate the source of the threat and to make sure that any accounts associated with it are blocked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Severe damage through a wrong article

Hi, could an office action be undertaken in the following case: E.g. a chemical article states something wrong, and naturally it is unsourced. Then, some unskilled worker or other person (maybe a pupil?) deals with the chemical according to the WP article and dies or is severely injured. He, or his family, sue the WMF by blaming his death on the wrong information...

The same could happen with some electrical article, or something dealing with statics, behaviour in case of catastrophies, or some severe theme...

Is that grounds for an office action? --Eu-151 (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The disclaimers on the Terms of Use are linked from every page. The office really doesn't mess with it; while it would be hard to sue the WMF without proving maliciousness, the fact that the WMF neither wrote it nor reviewed it provides a pretty huge defense. And this is something that absolutely can be taken care of by the community; if someone notices something like that, then they can and should fix it. The Office has no way to magically find stuff like that, and nowhere near the manpower of the community.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Update needed - Supermanprotect

Due to the new Superpower implemented and used by the foundation already on de: IMO there is an update needed. So far I dont know when they are going to use it. But maybe someone from the WMF could made the change to the rules?! ...Sicherlich ^Post 15:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Lois Lee status update

@Mdennis (WMF): The article Lois Lee is listed on this page as fully protected, but the actual article is not protected at all. The article's history says the protection "expired," which is borne out by the logs. Can we please get a formal statement on the status of this article? --NYKevin 00:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mdennis (WMF): The last ping didn't work because I messed it up and Echo doesn't like that. Re-pinging. --NYKevin 17:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

NYKevin, I don't know the status, but I'll find out. Thank you! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

NYKevin, thank you for pointing that out! It got missed in the transition of Philippe's illness and departure, I'm afraid. I've spoken to legal, and the scrutiny period did pass. The article no longer needs protection and can be handled through ordinary community processes as any other WP:BLP. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The modifications of 19 February 2019 are inconsistent with the Terms of Use

Regarding this change, Section 10 of the Terms of Use states, "In contrast to ... these Terms of Use, policies established by the community ... may cover a single Project." Were these changes discussed with or announced to the community prior to being used? EllenCT (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You've removed so much of the quoted sentence that you changed the meaning. Here's the full sentence: "In contrast to Board resolutions or these Terms of Use, policies established by the community, which may cover a single Project edition or multiple Projects editions (like the Global Ban Policy), may be modified by the relevant community according to its own procedures." The phrase starting with "which" is an aside, not the main thrust of the sentence; the main thrust is "may be modified by the relevant community according to its own procedures". It seems to me the point of the sentence is that community-established policies can be modified by the community as the community sees fit (while the Terms of Use cannot). —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Office actions changed from a policy page to an information page

I've changed the Wikipedia:Office actions page from a policy page to an information page. It is clear that it no longer holds local community support to be considered a policy following the update of February 2019. I've noted the change in the "Historical background" section of the page. –xeno^talk 13:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: Perhaps this should just get redirected to meta:Office actions (though I really think it more belongs on foundation wiki than metawiki, but we can have that debate on meta! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Or at least most of it. Small summary, a go to meta: link; keep the table of currently enforced local restrictions since they are only relevant here. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I am minded to agree with pointing people to the Meta page for general purposes. Office actions are after all a WMF-wide policy/practice so should ideally be documented on the global wiki (i.e Meta) rather than spread across every project. But we can have a list of the locally relevant actions here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No objection to that. Why is wmf:Office action a redlink? –xeno^talk 18:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If these external actions are going to be imposed on a more regular basis, I think we do need a local page that describes them. –xeno^talk 14:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

For listing project-specific actions, yes, but the general policy can be handled by a soft redirect to Meta as well. Note that the Meta page was given its current form at the same time as our version. Also compare [1] and [2]. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it could work. –xeno^talk 18:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It either needs to be reverted to the pre-February 2019 version (at which time it had the required community support to be a policy page), or with the changes made in February 2019 (for which consensus has not been established) it is only an information page or proposed policy. WJBscribe (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Adam9007: please see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community [emph. mine]; ownership of the page overleaf has been assumed by an external organization (with a re-write in June 2017 and an update in Feb 2019) and in no reasonable interpretation can be considered a local policy developed by the community. Accordingly, the page no longer meets the description of procedural policy. –xeno^talk 18:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Xeno, Maybe so, but we still need proper widespread consensus to officially demote it (it's been marked as policy for so long that consensus can be assumed). There are several essays which are so widely cited that they might as well be guidelines, but they're still officially classed as essays because there's no consensus for it. Adam9007 (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Adam9007: As indicated, I believe widespread consensus has already been demonstrated that it does not hold community support at this time, nor does it meet the definition of policy as per the policy on policies. You are welcome to initiate a requests for comment on the subject, of course. –xeno^talk 18:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If you're referring to this discussion, that's definitely a local consensus. Adam9007 (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe someone suggested that we simply soft-redirect to meta:Office actions. This may be a reasonable way forward. Clearly the page cannot be described as a local policy, as it was written by an external organization. –xeno^talk 18:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't MfD the proper venue for that? Adam9007 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not personally going to open any further discussions on the subject - enough kBs have been spent already. I think keeping it as an information page strikes a nice balance. At some point we may want to use the page to record editors who were removed by the Foundation so that other concerned editors can look for patterns and self-moderate their behaviour to avoid becoming subject to office actions. –xeno^talk 18:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with xeno and others. This is not an enwiki policy and that has now been clarified. No need to get mired in WP:BURO.- MrX 🖋 18:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

+1. No need for us to act as tho the WMF changes have a support level that they clearly do not have. Lepricavark (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Considering that WMF actions don't necessarily require community support to be in effect, and policies as they are presently defined do require community support, I think it makes sense that this page simply be an information page. However, it must be noted that such a change would not effect the ability of the WMF Office to make actions. Vermont (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Xeno, earlier today you boldly changed the designation of this page from "policy" to "information page". That change was reverted in accordance to WP:BRD. Now we've reached the discussion phase of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Please do not continue to make those controversial changes without first seeking consensus on the talk page. Thank you. Anne drew (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Don’t think I have. –xeno^talk 22:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Ping Jonathunder, Serial Number 54129, WJBscribe, Pigsonthewing, Adam9007 Anne drew (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've put the tag on the page and asked for protection, but I'm not really sure I have an opinion on the matter... Adam9007 (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That said, I'll suggest someone make this an RfC and link to it from the Community Response page. Adam9007 (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll also say that if there is indeed already consensus for this page's demotion, it's a procedurally flawed one. Adam9007 (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Xeno's edit would arguably be non-controversial at any other time, and on a point of WMF Terms of Service and procedure, he is right. This is not a local policy page, it is an information page, because it is intended to describe something that is above and beyond the remit of en-wiki to change. Tempted to XfD to force a discussion on redirecting to meta. Promethean (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Promethean, Well, earlier on I did mention MfD as the proper venue for that. Adam9007 (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me try to cut through this. The page does reflect a policy, but at least in part it's a WMF-created policy rather than a community-written one. Can we just state that, rather than adding to the already extensive ongoing discussions with a long debate over semantics? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Can someone explain why you can't just revert the change you object to, rather than changing or deleting the whole page? Then you could put a hatnote that WMFOffice doesn't respect this policy (the old policy), but it remains the community consensus. Wnt (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• This is ridiculously semantic and I strongly contest consensus exists. If you want to change it, start a RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• I support changing this to an information page. Unless the community adopts the present content of the page as an en-wiki policy, then it's not an en-wiki policy. If it's a WMF policy, then we can provide the information that this is the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support the change by xeno to information page, but would also support deletion or redirecting to another WMF project. Clearly and unambiguously: This is a WMF policy. It is not a local community policy. It therefore should notbe classed here on en.Wiki as a policy page.

That said, the WMF 'policy' as written is erroneous, inaccurate, misleading, and deceptive. Recent events have shown that at least one clause in each of the sections is not adhered to by the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• I support the change too. All en.wiki policies (even those with legal implications, to an extent) can be discussed and refined by the en.wiki community and this clearly can't whatsoever, so en.wiki policy this is not. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support the change by xeno per above reasoning and WP:MfD Promethean (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• I support Xeno's removal of {{procedural policy}} (What is that, anyway). This page is a Wikipedia essay, "Information page" may be the right term. It is not policy, as in created and supported by community policy. It was clearly confusing some, such as User:Kbrown (WMF) believing here that this page is an official outlet of the WMF. It does remain an important page, and it should point to sources of authority, without implying that this page itself is the authority. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Xeno's changes, obviously. ——SerialNumber54129 07:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:MfD - Redirect to Meta / Foundation article.

See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Office_actions. Original creator notified. Would appreciate an Administrator adding the template. Promethean (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Have withdrawn the MfD nomination; Too many forums discussing this issue, and the fragmentation isn't helpful. Could someone please remove the notice? Promethean (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done by Xeno --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Long-standing stable version

Should be restored to londstanding version prior to recent changes and non-consensus demotion. We have very specific guidelines and policies in place for disputes of this nature.

• No edit wars should be talking place especially by established editors with the status quo stable version of the page implemented. WP:PGBOLD - "editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards."
• WP:HISTORICAL - "An accepted policy or guideline may become obsolete because of changes in editorial practice or community standards, may become redundant because of improvements to other pages, or may represent unwarranted instruction creep. In such situations editors may propose that a policy be demoted to a guideline, or that a policy or guideline be demoted to a...."
• The {{Disputed tag}} template is typically used for claims that an essay, WikiProject advice or information page was recently assigned guideline or policy status without proper or sufficient consensus being established. See WP:Local consensus for more details. Moxy 🍁 22:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not consider 4 months to be long-standing in the timeline of the project. –xeno^talk 22:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Been here since 2006.... pls re-read proposal. ...restore to stable version prior to edits....--Moxy 🍁 22:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean restore to this version? I would be OK with that... WJBscribe (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That would be fine by me.--Moxy 🍁 22:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why the {{Disputed tag}} template can't be used in cases like this. Adam9007 (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes tag should stay as mentioned above in proposal ...as in what to do here.--Moxy 🍁 23:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, I don't believe that the policies you cited apply because this is not a Wikipedia policy page and it has never seen consensus for being elevated to a policy or guideline. It is a description of WMF policy that happens to conflict with community standards.- MrX 🖋 23:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Stable version during a dispute is the norm for all pages dispite the banner calling in it a policy or an essay. Like with every other page we discuss the dispute while the stable version remains. You've outlined your belief others may have a different point of view.... but in the meantime status quo. The dispute tag is especially for this type of case... it's meant to curb disrupted editing like deletion nominations, editwars, blanking, undiscussed redirects.--Moxy 🍁 23:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Adam9007: It's fine, and in fact a good idea, to open an RfC about this. But it would be better not to begin the RfC at the top of multiple comments that editors already made. You can read the instructions at WP:RFC, but you should basically open a new talk page section beginning with you asking a neutrally worded question. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Agee an RfC in a new section would be a great idea. Reading the above sections. . You get the clear impression there's some other dispute going on that has spilled over to this page... leaving us in the dark as to the real motivation.--Moxy 🍁 23:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. There is currently an RFC about this—please use the {{Edit protected}} template once it has concluded. The article was simply protected by 28bytes in the position he found it. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure how best to say this, but basically the kerfuffle above has got me wanting more community input on the issue about whether the change from policy to information page was correct and/or a good idea. Adam9007 (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support the change to an information page. It may be a WMF policy, but it currently is not an en-wiki policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to, instead, a soft redirect to meta. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support the change, per my comment a few sections above. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support the change to an information page. We should record the existence of this WMF policy, but it no longer appears to have community support in its latest iteration. WJBscribe (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia policies are Wikipedia policies, whether created by the community or by WMF. This seems a total overreaction to the recent office action. SportingFlyer T·C 23:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer: please see the first sentence of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and explain to me how the page in its current state can be considered a local policy. Was it developed by the community? Or was it written by an external organization without community input or consensus? –xeno^talk 00:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Xeno: Well, let's take a look: It was originally written 13 years ago by Jimbo Wales as "community policy" to help the Foundation deal with the onslaught of communications they were receiving. The big update was here in 2017, which passed with, as far as I can tell, no input whatsoever. The February 2019 update also passed without incident or even anyone objecting at all until the Fram thing happened. I understand trying to separate WMF from the community here, but I think you're reading way too much into that first sentence there - twelve years ago, it was clear policy was created either by norms or by the Foundation here and was finally removed here in 2009 in what appears to be a copy edit. I know consensus can change, but I really see no reason why the "community" is in charge of policies based on one sentence on the policies and guidelines page and the "Foundation" is in charge of the terms of use, when (assuming a distinction between the "community" and the "Foundation") for the first several years of the project the creation of policy by Jimbo was accepted by the community, and the fact policy continued to be created by the Foundation without any pushback in 2017 and then again in February 2019 until the Foundation made an unpopular decision. SportingFlyer T·C 01:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  The page has had a major re-write in 2017 and a major update in Feb 2019 without any community consensus or input, and I cannot even see that these changes were announced to our community before or after they were made. I cannot see how it can be described as a local Wikipedia policy. You can call it what you want, but it does not meet the definition of local policy. The fact that I have changed it to an information page merely reflects that it was not written or developed by the community, which is objectively fact. –xeno^talk 01:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  As a longtime editor you must be aware most updates to our policies and guidelines pages don't involve a conversation WP:PGBOLD. If t policy page that someone just discovered seems to be an error we have a process for all to discuss any concerns WP:HISTORICAL. Best to go through the proper process especially when there is a conflict of interest....no one should assume any page is not watched over by others. --Moxy 🍁 02:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. –xeno^talk 02:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Xeno, I don’t particularly agree with you, but I’m happy to see phrases from the Pythons themselves used as an argument. Vermont (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  The page was created in 2006 without any community consensus or input as a policy. What's changed in the interim? SportingFlyer T·C 01:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well, for one, the text of the page was changed by over 33 kB by a role account employed by an external organization without community input or consensus. It should have been marked informational at that point, probably. –xeno^talk 01:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  That continues to assume only the community can make policy and not WMF, which I've said above is flawed reasoning. SportingFlyer T·C 02:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  On this point we have a fundamental disagreement. The WMF cannot create local policy by fiat. They can impose and enforce external (or global) policy by the sheer force of the staff userright, granted. But so far that has not gone well for them. –xeno^talk 02:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  There's no functional difference between local policy and global policy, though, and there hasn't been for awhile, even though a review of the historical record showed there was no intended conflcit. At the end of the day, they're still policies that govern community conduct on Wikipedia. Making this page "informational" or redirecting it to WMF's wiki page does our users a disservice by making it look like the WMF standards are somehow different to the community standards. SportingFlyer T·C 02:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well, they are distinct. They are in conflict. The WMF cannot instate local policy any more than I can instruct you to start or stop believing in god, and they cannot use our banners to make it look like the community has accepted or endorsed these externally-imposed partials bans (as the community has not). As far as a difference in standards: the WMF has not disclosed to us under what standards their recent actions were taken so we cannot come to any kind of determination as to how community standards and WMF standards differ. I’m sorry but I think we simply disagree at a fundamental level, I’m not sure further discussion between us will be productive. –xeno^talk 02:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with you we're at a crossroads, and I'm clearly in the minority here - I just don't think there's anything wrong with the banner that previously existed, which clearly stated that page was policy created by Jimmy Wales and the Wikipedia Foundation, and relegating this to an information page or to the WMF website will have a detrimental effect on the project. I liken this to having a shitty landlord who was once a decent landlord who evicted a problematic tenant, even though the tenants' union uniformly said that person didn't need to be evicted. Trying to minimise the effects of the landlord's rules doesn't mean we don't have to abide by them. I guess I just need a better hobby. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The community has long acknowledged the role of the WMF in enforcing their terms of use. It has been—and should remain—Wikipedia policy to recognize such office actions. Anne drew (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm also okay to redirect to meta. But listing this policy as just an information page is misleading. Anne drew (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• No one's saying the WMF can't enforce their own ToU on their own website. But it isn't a policy. Not by our standards. It's the "policy" of the external organization that technically owns the site. We, the volunteers, govern and maintain the site, enforce the ToU, and set our own additional rules. The staff of the WMF may do whatever they want without our approval and without respect to our opinions, even if 100% of us disagrees, and we do not have the right to appeal, the right to ask for information, or the right to object. We do not, and have never, authorized this, and it goes against everything we stand for. The only thing that would be "misleading" would be falsely pretending that it was "commuunity approved". ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Undeclared paid editing. It is proof that the WMF can't enforce their own ToU on their own website. ToUs typically contain "in your dreams" wishful statements. Sporadic enforcement can cause more damage than help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The change is objectively correct. This page is unilaterally imposed, written and expanded by WMF staff to reflect their rules that they impose on us, regardless of community approval. This is the opposite of our community standards for policies, which essentially is nothing other than "community approval". A policy tag implies that it is supported by that standard, and that is false. No one's disputing that the Foundation can take Office actions or enforce the ToU, but that doesn't make it a community-approved policy. Thus it should not be tagged as an enwiki policy if it doesn't meet the straightforward "community support" clause of WP:POLICIES. A better test would be to ask if this page should be tagged as a policy, and try to get affirmative consensus to support it. That's the standard for policy pages. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Meta The reality is this is not community policy. It is an information page that is owned and maintained by WMF, there's no point forcing them to update it here when it is already on Meta. Update to Information Page as second preference. Promethean (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - this does not have wide support among the community. A redirect to Meta is also satisfactory as a WMF policy. starship.paint (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Trypto and WJBscribe, et al. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Rschen7754 00:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Meta as first choice. Support downgrading this to an information page as second choice. We don't control this policy. But its various pieces still apply to the community. So why not link it to the place that the people who do control it have chosen to have it live - META. Failing consensus for that as it does not have consensus of the community it should be considered an information page. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Meta The question of whether this has community support is moot, whether it does or does not has no bearing on whether the WMF will enforce it. By redirecting to Meta, the soft redirect will make clear that the page is not subject to the regular consensus process. Second choice is mark as information page per Barkeep and Xeno (elsewhere): recent events make clear that this page does not enjoy wide support. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 01:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support: if you read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, the first sentence defines them as developed by the community. This policy was not instituted by the community and we have never had control over its content, so it fails the fundamental definition of a policy. This would be true whether or not a consensus existed to uphold this policy. Of course, this doesn't mean that the policy is inapplicable to enwiki; it merely means that it's not an enwiki policy, it's a WMF policy. I think we should keep it as an information page, perhaps adding a section outlining the community's view on the policy. Redirecting to Meta is a fine alternative, however. – Teratix ₵ 01:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. This "policy" does not have community consensus so it should not be identified or described as a Wikipedia policy.- MrX 🖋 02:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, let WMF start an RfC to see if the community agrees with this and if the community thinks this is how en.wikipedia should be governed we can upgrade it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: if this page is wholesalemove awayfrom en.wikipedia as a 'Foundation policy', I still expect a local, community endorsed guideline or policy in a place lke this on how WMF is enforcing this on en.wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, per all the "support" arguments above. I also support a redirect to Meta. Dr. K. 03:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - From WP:PG Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community .... Well, this page falls short of even the first hurdle. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above. Never had community input/consensus. Should probably be redirected to meta too since the WMF has made it clear they fly by the seat of their pants and make the rules up as they go. -FASTILY 05:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support either redirecting it to meta (first choice) or making it an information page. The fact is that it was not voted by the community, it was not approved by the community, and it is not subject to normal community editing processes like all other policies. It should be made clear that it is edited and applied by fiat and therefore best redirected to the place where it is maintained. No such user (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Link to meta and leave a rump of info as to how it has been applied to enwiki as an information page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Would also support redirect to Meta. That's the appropriate place for it, and it's already hosted there. There's no need for it to be masquerading as a local community policy. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support or redirect to meta because it's clearly not policy. Enigma^msg 07:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Xeno's changes, obviously. ——SerialNumber54129 10:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support or mark historical It's not a reflective of the current state. - SchroCat (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Meta makes the most sense to me, but if we must keep a local copy on English Wikipedia, my next choice would be the alternative banner I propose below in the #Alternative banner section for the reasons I mentioned below. Mz7 (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Xeno.Nishidani (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Meta and only keep a list of local actions here Per my comments in the sections above. I don't think this should be marked as a policy as it's really more a global policy, and these are recorded on Meta (or elsewhere; Wikipedia:Designated agent is another example of a soft redirect along these lines) not locally, but also not as an information page for the same reason. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Meta [3] just like we did with the TOU back in the day, which we also use to host in-full. The assume bad faith of some or odd conspiracy theories notwithstanding, it's just a document that has been kept in two places, and the only thing at issue is the boring task, we sometimes do not get around to of record keeping. Also, it likely made sense to many because we link to it several times in our policies, but at any rate, let's just do the re-filing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Per Xeno. Policies are created on Wikipedia by consensus amongst editors. WP:OFFICE needs to be accountable to the community, an issue I intendt to raise in the forthcoming ARBCOM case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 09:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Meta because it's not our policy. Keep a list of enacted office actions here. Alternatively, support for the alternative banner with the WMF logo. rchard2scout (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per "not my policy". Please stop using arguments like "but we're not allowed!!!", we are defining that this isn't community policy and that is exactly what we are making clear. If you're opposing, you're choosing WMF over the community and if that's your viewpoint, go for it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support the change by xeno to information page, but would also support deletion or redirecting to another WMF project. Clearly and unambiguously: This is a WMF policy. It is not a local community policy. It therefore should not be classed here on en.Wiki as a policy page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support If it is not an official policy of the English Wikipedia, and was never approved by the community, it should not be marked as such. Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support or redirect to Meta as this is clearly not a community-endorsed policy. Lepricavark (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support or redirect to Meta. A policy, by definition, has widespread support amongst the community. The WMF's actions here do not. MER-C 13:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - it's not a policy developed by the community, it's a rule imposed from outside upon us. Calling it a policy is inaccurate. Guettarda (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support: the page as it exists now strikes a good balance. Jonathunder (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Redirecting to the meta page makes the most sense to me, but I have no strong objection to marking this as information-only. It ain't en.wiki policy, though. Good call, xeno. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - as long as it's very clear that this is a global/WMF policy, possibly through a unique banner. Trialpears (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support change of banner - the 2nd one below. A redirect is a significantly lower alternate preference. A change from the current set-up is required. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia policies are determined by community consensus. This doesn't have the support of the community. Therefore, it is not policy. I'd even go so far as to ask which policy it "accurately reflects" as an info page. Benjamin (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support either the change or the redirect. It's pretty obvious that this does not have community support and so it shouldn't have a banner reserved for pages which do. Hut 8.5 21:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Policies require a community consensus behind them. This one does not have it. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Tryptofish. The page had been mislabeled for many years and that mistake has been fixed. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Soft redirect (to meta, or a Foundation page), or Support. Sorry to be so late. Forgot to put WP:CENT on my short watchlist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support change to information banner, Oppose any redirect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support change to information about a WMF policy. That's what it is. GermanJoe (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I'm open to any of a number of things regarding this: deletion, redirecting (to Meta), or changing it to an information page. Regardless, the fact remains that this was neither proposed nor endorsed (or in any way sanctioned) by the community. This policy was not crafted, drafted, formulated, or otherwise created by the community. As such, it is not community policy, and so it lacks community consensus and support. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support this change, no redirect. We shouldn't make it look like a local policy, if for no other reason than that local policies are freely editable without discussion (for small things like spelling fixes) and freely editable with local consensus, and neither is true for WMF policies. But we shouldn't redirect it, because we ought to be able to control this page's contents: both the history section and the links at the end of the intro (e.g. Category:Wikipedia Office-protected pages) are en:wp specific and wouldn't appear on a Meta page, yet they are beneficial here. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support either the info banner or the redirect, oppose returning this to a policy page. Info banner is first choice since we can include more information on the page that goes beyond whatever WMF puts on Meta. Basically if it's a local page with an info banner, it becomes something like an article about OAs and we can provide links to local essays and discussions about the treatment of OAs and relevant enwiki ArbCom cases in addition to historical information. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Seems clear-cut. It's not a Wikipedia policy, so don't call it one. --Yair rand (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Information page designation. Policy & guidelines are our governing body of rules, standards, and best practices; the constantly morphing pronouncements adopted without discussion or consent by San Francisco are not. But we do need to inform potential editors of these potential perils of participation. Carrite (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support soft redirect to Meta, preferably with explanatory notice of status linking to this RfC, and retain talk page, or if reasonably feasible transclude content from Meta with local notice explaining status and linking to RfC. Do not keep original on WP. Not our circus, not our monkeys. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support because if this is a Policy page then I am certainly going to open a proposal to revise parts of the policy. Somehow I don't quite think that's the Opposers' intended result here. Alsee (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. (both downgrade to info page and the redirect). This needs to just be tagged {{legal policy}} just like every other legal policy we have.

Detailed explanation

Under Wikipedia:List of policies#Legal, These are policies with legal implications. Outside of policies, such as those below and the office actions policy, Wikipedia does not censor itself of content that may be objectionable or offensive, or adopt other perennial legal proposals over content, so long as the content obeys the law of the United States. Legal issues are raised by filing a formal complaint with the Wikimedia Foundation. Right there it is made pretty clear that WP:OA isn't a standard Wikipedia policy (ie. one made by the community). Office actions are made to enforce legal policies (some of which we host here as well). The community will never be able to do something about that. I get people like we're a self-governing project and everything, but that doesn't change the fact Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy. The primary purpose of the community is not nor should it be to be self-governing. Building an encyclopedia comes second to self-governance and community democracy. That being said... Can someone please tell me how this proposal to downgrade WP:OA into an info page directly helps build an encyclopedia and is not merely an attempt to send a message to WMF? What logical purpose do we have for (a) moving this off-wiki or (b) downgrading this to an information page (besides procedural)? It's still a global policy. It obviously still applies here. Why does this need to be stored away in meta? Why should we make it less accessible by turning it into a soft redirect? According to the proponents here, because WP:POLICYPAGES says Policies and guidelines pages (sic) describe Wikipedia's best practice and clarify principles that are widely accepted by the community and have been through the Wikipedia review process. Therefore, this page must not be a policy. However, it also says policy pages are marked with the {{policy}}, {{guideline}} or {{MoS guideline}} template. I suppose this means that we can't use {{Subcat guideline}}? (Of course not.) It also makes clear at the top of Wikipedia:Project namespace that its underlying information... is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. There we can infer pages marked {{subcat guideline}} or {{legal policy}} are still policies (using common sense). What else is a policy? WP:Office actions. Has it been reviewed by the community? Yes, it's edited fairly regularly (by non-WMF employees). Is it accepted by the community? Not necessarily, but it's still a policy. If it wasn't policy, then why did Floq and Bish unblocking Fram matter? I mean, we all do understand what office actions are normally for. Was all this fuss over a mere information page? I would argue that it wasn't. It was understood that they were going against what had been established policy (obviously this is contested now). Now hold on MJL, you might be saying to yourself. Just because it's an information page doesn't mean it's unenforceable. That's correct... but what are information pages for anyways? According to WP:INFOPAGES, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms. Further, they haven't been vetted by the community (apparently 13 years, more than 100 contributors, and 667 revisions isn't enough vetting to some people here... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) and generally try to just provide impartial and factual information to editors. Because of the fact there are no obvious policies this info page could possibly be clarifying, one must assume this proposal means that it's meant to give information on... the global policy(?). A global policy, mind you; that (1) applies to English Wikipedia, (2) is essentially forked from our page, and (3) pretty much has global consensus.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

MJL the community did have a hand in the policy... until it was over-written (see also Wikipedia talk:Office actions#Why was the page overwritten by the WMF in 2017?). Since then, the community contributions have been gnomish at best ([4] [5]. It's not local policy anymore. –xeno^talk 17:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: [Thank you for the ping] Per WP:BRD, re-writing a page (even a policy page) is perfectly acceptable à la WP:BOLD. Because no one thought to challenge the "overwrite" in 2 years, it became the stable version. For example, WP:CSD was once re-written,^[6] and later discussed here. Either way, my major point is that the exception to the rule (ie. that policies need to be written and discussed by the community) is legal policies of which Office Actions is one. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Why isn't it in the list? –xeno^talk 17:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It's grouped up with the Legal policies in the introduction to that list. It's all part of my detailed explaination. I've no clue why we decided to single it out from the others, but we did for some reason. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also, this page isn't in my watchlist, so I'd appreciate the ping if you don't mind.–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 09:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: it’s mentioned but it’s under a separate (and erroneous, IMO) L2 heading. Perhaps it should be moved to the legal subhead, but the link should be changed to the (now external) WMF Foundation policy page. –xeno^talk 15:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess that could happen, but it'd be somewhat off putting to have an external policy being enforced as if it was local (in my opinion). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support It's clear that there is no clear consensus. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Having it as an information page seems more appropriate at this stage. -- Dolotta (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support change or redirect: See comments in threaded discussion below. Otr500 (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to meta seems the best option. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment As someone has basically said this is an improper RfC I'll spell it out: is the change correct or not? Adam9007 (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Rfc outlines nothing .. someone new to discussion has no clue what's going on..plus we have a deletion discussion going on a redirect discussion going on and a demotion discussion going on and a version request. Why should this be demoted clearly there's some dispute elsewhere?--Moxy 🍁 23:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  I think it's been adequately explained as whether editors favor or oppose the change from policy to info page, and that the discussion leading up to the RfC is directly above it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  OK here's the problem after reading above....sounds like someone got banned or blocked by Office action and people are upset that this was done ..correct? Then it sounds like because of that action and the communities dislike of the events and process they wish to demote this page because they don't agree with the policy .... despite the fact all agree it the WMF policy and they will most likely do the action again. This actually sounds OK if the community agrees as long as we link the WMF page. --Moxy 🍁 23:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  This is not really the point. An RfC is supposed to take the form of a concise, comprehensible question or statement immediately under the header. It should be understandable on its own without the need for additional context or subsequent explanation. RfC tags aren't magical. The text following the RfC tag is automatically transcluded by a bot to a centralized list for uninvolved users to review. This list entry is not editable—it's forced by the bot. That's how the RfC is advertised. So, when the RfC question is Not sure how best to say this, but basically the kerfuffle above has got me wanting more community input on the issue about whether the change from policy to information page was correct and/or a good idea., that's far from concise. It should ideally say something like Is Office actions a policy supported by the community?}} And then people know what they're actually being asked to comment on. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Per my post above, we're reading way too much into the "community" part of the "policies and guidelines." It's been custom since at least 2006 that the Foundation is capable of making policy through fiat just as the community is capable of creating policy through norms. SportingFlyer T·C 01:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Even accepting that had been consensus, consensus can change. But the practical reasons behind that are why I favor soft redirecting to meta over simply marking it informational. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Global policy, maybe. The WMF cannot step in and start telling the community what the community should consider local policy — that’s simply not the way things work around here. You can call a dog a horse, but that doesn’t make it so. –xeno^talk 01:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Note: I have added this discussion to WP:CENT because I believe it is a discussion of community-wide interest. Mz7 (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that Mz7, this discussion can only benefit from greater involvement of the community. Promethean (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Opinion I am strongly opposed to any redirect, because the page is not in the remit of WP:EN to determine where it should be held on Meta. It is a page that was imposed upon the WP:EN community to inform what the role and scope of WMF actions may be upon the local wiki. As we do not accept that it is WP:EN derived policy, then we can also not be able to send someone elsewhere to determine how WMF may bypass consensus - we cannot impose our consensus upon the WMF. I would also very gently point out that this information page does not seem to address how the WMF felt themselves able to discipline a WP:EN sysop for actions publicly made within that community. As an information page, it is apparently outdated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Calling for a SNOW closure - I don't think the final result is in any doubt here. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please let me suggest keeping it open for the full time. Not because the outcome is going to change, because it isn't. But rather, because the larger the statement, the larger the number of supports, the clearer the message to WMF becomes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Concur with Tryptofish on this point. Larger number of participants is better. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Do not close: All comments are important. Otr500 (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments: As an "Exchange Tenant" we have to abide by the landlords ultimate ruling, be evicted, or move someplace else. This does not mean we have to agree and/or support their actions. They ("the office") claim their actions cannot be appealed. Either this is true and the founder has somehow lost power or has yielded it for better things, or he still has some ultimate say that might require some ad hoc intervention. This may be a case considered "completely egregious and inescapably important issue that must be responded to". The "community" has been entrusted to handle most things apparently with the founders overall approval and ARBCOM surely has had his support and trust (unless something has changed) but that safety and certain WMF "office" decisions are certainly needed, is not questionable, and may in fact have to be finale. There has to be fairness and transparency that WMF had to step in and communication as to why (without divulging certain information) it was needed. To me I could see a likeness that would be more akin to the states and the feds or the courts and the Supreme Court where usurped authority is necessary and not "we say--you do-- no choice. I think we all can make different choices but some of would rather continue building a great encyclopedia.

Questions: Is ARBCOM now considered ineffective and in need of absolving or radical change? Can "the office" go too far and did they? The office has apparently made decisions the community has fought and it seems were successful with some. In the case that has led to this there are ramifications I expect will not just "go away". I was led here through what seemed to be almost incoherent rants of another editor because of some fear and am appalled. There either needs to be some way for the office (with the founders help or not) to find a solution that will not lead to the tearing down of a community. If they can kick a tenant out without any justification or explanation, offer only a reinforcement that "they" (the office or owners of the building) are ultimately in charge and there is nothing "we" (the exchange tenants) can do about it, they will have made a fundamental error. "We" do not have to give our time to building an encyclopedia that could someday be sold anyway. Is this a knee-jerk reaction? Of course it is! Without some sort of repair (compromise) the injured knee can cause the foundation to collapse. Are office "rules" and decisions a reflection of what is agreed upon by the community? Apparently not at all. Does the community have to agree? Absolutely not because if we don't resolve to capitulate we can find a new building. While a couple or a few might not be missed, and some might even give secretive smiles, there could be irreparable harm in complacency or indifference that there is a serious problem.

The founder or other "office managers" should move the person that in essence declared "we are in charge and there is nothing you can do about it". I find it almost impossible that something that involves only a one year ban is so egregious that it could not have been handled by ARBCOM. At the very least the WMF should have had some kind of communication with ARBCOM. I think it strange that office personnel would get involved when there are arguments that make it seems that this could be "just an office spanking" that we should accept without question. This does not need to end up being "us" against "them" and that is a possible unintended direction.

@Jimbo Wales: Thank you for providing a place for us to build an encyclopedia the world has enjoyed and thank you for looking into this as I see you are doing. Please remember that you have made decisions that you apparently regretted or upon reflection had a change of mind. Change can involve evolution or can be sudden. A sudden change can have unintended consequences and I fear this may be such a case. It is my opinion that you have this project at heart and ultimately support the community that certainly includes ARBCOM so I trust this will weigh in on any decisions. I am going to continue editing and hope for a resolution the community can at least tolerate, avoiding a possible likely detrimental mass uprising, exodus, or permanent damage to the community. Hopefully I have not now placed my name on some list of expendables.

It seems unthinkable that ARBCOM cannot all of a sudden be entrusted with harassment or civility cases. The community supports the foundation Non-discrimination policy. There is the Wikipedia:Harassment/draft that seems to have faltered. If the WMF feels the community, that includes admins and ARBCOM, has not done enough the WMF could issue a proclamation reflecting that incivility, harassment, or intimidation shall not be tolerated against anyone and that the community needs to take a far more serious position. I seem to recall a discussion that included Mr. Wales, where I did not think we needed to specifically make a policy to protect "just women" because all people should be treated fairly and with respect. I boldly made a change to the harassment policy, that received flak only because of the boldness without discussion, but it still survives.

Deserves consideration: I feel that WP:5P4 could be elevated to WP:5P2 and maybe a link to Admins willing to make difficult blocks. I think a central location could be found for reporting incivility, harassment, or intimidation, not with a fear there will be a boomerang (which could end up the case where there is reciprocity of incivility) but more that incivility will not now be tolerated. If there is not enough admins appointed we need to discuss this. There apparently needs to be some specific community project or central location and community involvement. The WMF should consider that their actions can be perceived as bullying and intimidation. There does not need to be a battle but a regrouping. I liked it better when I suppose I might have been naive and thought we were all in this together to build an encyclopedia.

I am glad I am not a member of ARBCOM because I think I would now want all potential "civility cases" (as this seems) to be forwarded to the authority (the office) that now seems to claim control. Wait! If I was an ARBCOM member I think I would resign considering that apparently the foundation (hopefully not the founder) has lost faith in the process (certainly giving indications this has happened) that does have community backing. If the WMF considers the community has a problem then communicate this and THEN if the community fails to take action, or there are legal ramification, step in and save us. Otherwise implications that "we are in charge and you cannot question our decisions might surely have detrimental consequences worse than has already come to light. Thank you to those that bothered to read and/or respond to this long winded rant. Hope to see you around if some "goon squad" is not headed my way. If my user name suddenly has a line through it at least remember: I am for equal protection for all. Otr500 (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Alternative banner

So, it looks like the general feeling here is that the original banner, {{procedural policy}}, was an inaccurate description of this page on the basis that it was not developed and accepted through community consensus. With that being said, it also appears that No one's disputing that the Foundation can take Office actions or enforce the ToU – accordingly, I fear that "information page" may give the false impression that this page is unimportant and can be ignored lightly, without thought to potential consequences. (Note: I am not making a statement about anyone who recently ignored this page here – their decision to ignore this page was likely not taken lightly, and I believe they understood what the potential consequences were.)

Why don't we create a new banner that clarifies that this page was not created by the community, but nonetheless acknowledges that it has authority as a WMF policy enforcing the TOU? Here's an example based on the banner that is currently on the page, but I'm open to other wording.

Mz7 (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternative image suggested by Promethean below:

Mz7 (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support I was actually thinking of this myself. Adam9007 (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I think I prefer a slightly alternative wording of "On this page, the words "policy" and "guideline" are used to refer to procedures established by the Wikimedia Foundation. For procedures established by the Wikipedia community, see policies and guidelines." But general support. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Sometimes the word policy is used in the WMF policy to refer to local policy though. –xeno^talk 02:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Workable but I’m somewhat leaning towards a soft redirect to wmf:Office actions instead. –xeno^talk 02:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Xeno, That page doesn't seem to exist. Am I missing something? Adam9007 (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  No, apparently the WMF is though. I think our local page should probably look something like commons:Commons:Office actions and carry a list of partially WMF-banned editors. In this regard, concerned users can look for patterns in the behaviours of the removed users so that we may attempt to deduce the behaviours the WMF is trying to stem and the actual WMF policy can happily live elsewhere. –xeno^talk 02:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Adam9007, he meant a lot of people are suggesting meta:Office actions. I think soft redirect is a fine solution as well, and I'm unopposed to it. The solution I find the most problematic is the "information page" characterization for the reason I mentioned above. Mz7 (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  They should keep their policies in their own policy book; wmf:Office actions should not be a red link. –xeno^talk 02:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support good way to move forward.--Moxy 🍁 02:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The alternative banner graphically imitates the policy banner by using the iconic "Green Tick" as the graphic. My opposition would be less if it used the WMF Logo instead of the Green Tick, But even then I would still oppose it for the simple fact that it is incompatible with the more popular "Change to Information Page" and "Soft redirect to Meta/Foundation" proposals. Promethean (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Third choice for reasons elaborated on above. Would support prometheans image change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this still makes people think that this is something the community agrees with. We have specifically disallowed (our chosen and community endorsed) ArbCom to write policy, but we allow WMF to do it. Policy written by people that often have not significantly edited Wikipedia, and have not been chosen (or even endorsed) by the community. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Promethean and Dirk Beetstra. Definitely, no green tick. starship.paint (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'd suggest we go to with at least the second image (the one with the WMF logo and not the tick), but I think soft redirecting to a Meta page is better for the actual WMF policy, or put such policy on Meta and turn this page into an information page on the effects (bans, etc.) of the WMF policy specifically as it applies to the English Wikipedia. (See my !vote above.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. WMF can put WMF policies on a WMF branded website. Or Wikipedia is not a self-governing project. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I will conditionally support a soft redirect to meta but my vote above is my first choice. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dirk Beetstra. MER-C 13:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dirk Beetstra. Guettarda (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it is not an en-wiki policy, and it isn't, then it is better to indicate that it is an information page about something else, and not to make it look like it's sort-of-a-policy. (But I do appreciate the good faith idea.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support the 2nd, reject the first - I feel that this strikes the compromise that newer editors (read: ones who haven't read all of wp:FRAM) need to know about the dictated rules, while not suggesting that the Community grants any support to it. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think that identifying the page as an information page and referring users to the policy page on meta (as proposed in the RfC above) would be less confusing to users.- MrX 🖋 22:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose both. Either gives the false impression that the information here will be official and not subject to easy updating by editors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  If it were added to the current version of the page, I would agree with you. However, the alternative banner is meant to be added to this version of the page, which is a mirror of the official policy at Meta and would indeed be not subject to easy updating. Mz7 (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 16:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Opppose this merely adds confusion--it is also wrong, because the point is that we do not accept this as policy, though it may be factually thecase that it is forced on us. That's quite different from theo ther WMF poliices, we we do in general whole-heartedly accept, such as copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support The information on this page is insufficiently developed to meaningfully communicate useful information. The WMF is welcome to develop this page to become a policy if that organization ever chooses to do so. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Compromise revision

Please review Special:PermanentLink/903411786 and comment. –xeno^talk 15:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Noting for posterity that I've implemented this (with some additional copyedits) (Special:PermanentLink/903487279). –xeno^talk 13:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Xeno: Suggest you leave this for an uninvolved admin to review and implement, rather than editing through protection! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Protection expired. –xeno^talk 13:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, sorry then — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries. –xeno^talk 13:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

edit protected page

• it's probably time to remove the MfD tag from this now that the MfD is closed. 173.84.211.79 (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Done, ty –xeno^talk 00:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Why was the page overwritten by the WMF in 2017?

On 26 June 2017 en.wiki's longstanding version of Wikipedia:Office actions was overwritten by the WMF, changing it to the meta version. Does anyone remember what led up to that? No other language version seems to have been affected. de:Wikipedia:Office Action remains as that site wrote it. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Office actions#Currently under scrutiny

This sections of the page seems to be defunct and calling more attention to the one (six year old) entry than really ought be. Can it be deleted? @Philippe and JEissfeldt (WMF): –xeno^talk 00:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Would the actions involving Fram belong here? — Ched :  ?  — 12:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  Special:Diff/903573799. –xeno^talk 13:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Gents, I've gone ahead and removed the section. Hasn't been touched in 2 years, the only member pages are fully protected. If you really want it, re-add it back I suppose. –xeno^talk 14:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of policies and guidelines#Status of WP:Office actions and WP:Bureaucrats

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of policies and guidelines#Status of WP:Office actions and WP:Bureaucrats. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48