Wikipedia:Office Actions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
76 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Wikipedia:Office Actions

Casey Brown-2
For those who do not know,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_Actions.
 
This policy has been mislabeled "Wikimedia-wide" official policy until last
evening (EST) when Anthere and I (Cbrown1023) cleaned up the page and
brought it up to date.  Currently, it is just "Wikimedia" official policy.
There is no doubt by any that the Office cannot do anything it wants
(basically what this policy states) but the part that needs to be clarified
is if it really is "Wikimedia-wide".  Recently, we declined two requests on
Meta to move or transwiki the policy page to Meta because it is labeled as
"Wikimedia-wide official policy", but we denied it because it is not in use
on all of Wikimedia and it appears that it was not intended for use outside
of the English Wikipedia at its creation.  The first statement that it was
used elsewhere was added by an anonymous editor
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions&diff=935
35379&oldid=93466899> &diff=93535379&oldid=93466899), before that it had
said "official policy on the English Wikipedia".  (Then it changed at least
twice more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions&diff=994
58664&oldid=97871051> &diff=99458664&oldid=97871051 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions&diff=995
30111&oldid=99458664> &diff=99530111&oldid=99458664).
 
Anthere and I deduced that it was not really official Wikimedia policy and
could be made to be one of it was approved by either the Board of Trustees
or the future Executive Director.  I for one, would like clarification on
this policy and its stance in Wikimedia.  Everything else, to our knowledge,
has been updated and clarified.
 
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

daniwo59
 
So the problems that OFFICE is intended to resolve can only occur on the  
English Wikipedia? Or alternately, so the office is only responsible for the  
English Wikipedia?
 
To the best of my knowledge (and I was there), the policy was put into  place
by Jimbo in his then capacity as Chair of the Board, with the support of  
Brad, in his then capacity as ED. Both these titles were  foundation-wide--i.e.,
Jimbo was chair of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation,  not just the
English Wikipedia, and Brad was ED of the Wikimedia Foundation, not  just the
English Wikipedia.
 
To me this seems like yet another attempt to isolate the office from the  
other projects.
 
Danny
 
In a message dated 4/23/2007 6:10:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

For  those who do not  know,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_Actions.

This  policy has been mislabeled "Wikimedia-wide" official policy until  last
evening (EST) when Anthere and I (Cbrown1023) cleaned up the page  and
brought it up to date.  Currently, it is just "Wikimedia" official  policy.
There is no doubt by any that the Office cannot do anything it  wants
(basically what this policy states) but the part that needs to be  clarified
is if it really is "Wikimedia-wide".  Recently, we declined  two requests on
Meta to move or transwiki the policy page to Meta because  it is labeled as
"Wikimedia-wide official policy", but we denied it because  it is not in use
on all of Wikimedia and it appears that it was not  intended for use outside
of the English Wikipedia at its creation.   The first statement that it was
used elsewhere was added by an anonymous  editor
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions&diff=935
35379&oldid=93466899>  &diff=93535379&oldid=93466899), before that it had
said "official  policy on the English Wikipedia".  (Then it changed at least
twice  more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions&diff=994
58664&oldid=97871051>  &diff=99458664&oldid=97871051  and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions&diff=995
30111&oldid=99458664>  &diff=99530111&oldid=99458664).

Anthere and I deduced that it  was not really official Wikimedia policy and
could be made to be one of it  was approved by either the Board of Trustees
or the future Executive  Director.  I for one, would like clarification on
this policy and its  stance in Wikimedia.  Everything else, to our knowledge,
has been  updated and clarified.

Casey  Brown
Cbrown1023







************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Casey Brown-2
Just for the record, I love the office and would love to see it on meta...

Cbrown1023

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
[hidden email]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 6:20 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia:Office Actions

 
So the problems that OFFICE is intended to resolve can only occur on the  
English Wikipedia? Or alternately, so the office is only responsible for the

English Wikipedia?
 
To the best of my knowledge (and I was there), the policy was put into
place
by Jimbo in his then capacity as Chair of the Board, with the support of  
Brad, in his then capacity as ED. Both these titles were
foundation-wide--i.e.,
Jimbo was chair of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation,  not just the
English Wikipedia, and Brad was ED of the Wikimedia Foundation, not  just
the
English Wikipedia.
 
To me this seems like yet another attempt to isolate the office from the  
other projects.
 
Danny
 
In a message dated 4/23/2007 6:10:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

For  those who do not  know,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_Actions.

This  policy has been mislabeled "Wikimedia-wide" official policy until
last
evening (EST) when Anthere and I (Cbrown1023) cleaned up the page  and
brought it up to date.  Currently, it is just "Wikimedia" official  policy.
There is no doubt by any that the Office cannot do anything it  wants
(basically what this policy states) but the part that needs to be  clarified
is if it really is "Wikimedia-wide".  Recently, we declined  two requests on
Meta to move or transwiki the policy page to Meta because  it is labeled as
"Wikimedia-wide official policy", but we denied it because  it is not in use
on all of Wikimedia and it appears that it was not  intended for use outside
of the English Wikipedia at its creation.   The first statement that it was
used elsewhere was added by an anonymous  editor
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions&diff=935
35379&oldid=93466899>  &diff=93535379&oldid=93466899), before that it had
said "official  policy on the English Wikipedia".  (Then it changed at least
twice  more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions&diff=994
58664&oldid=97871051>  &diff=99458664&oldid=97871051  and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions&diff=995
30111&oldid=99458664>  &diff=99530111&oldid=99458664).

Anthere and I deduced that it  was not really official Wikimedia policy and
could be made to be one of it  was approved by either the Board of Trustees
or the future Executive  Director.  I for one, would like clarification on
this policy and its  stance in Wikimedia.  Everything else, to our
knowledge,
has been  updated and clarified.

Casey  Brown
Cbrown1023







************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Kat Walsh-4
In reply to this post by Casey Brown-2
On 4/23/07, Casey Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:

> For those who do not know,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_Actions.
>
> This policy has been mislabeled "Wikimedia-wide" official policy until last
> evening (EST) when Anthere and I (Cbrown1023) cleaned up the page and
> brought it up to date.  Currently, it is just "Wikimedia" official policy.
> There is no doubt by any that the Office cannot do anything it wants
> (basically what this policy states) but the part that needs to be clarified
> is if it really is "Wikimedia-wide".  Recently, we declined two requests on
> Meta to move or transwiki the policy page to Meta because it is labeled as
> "Wikimedia-wide official policy", but we denied it because it is not in use
> on all of Wikimedia and it appears that it was not intended for use outside
> of the English Wikipedia at its creation.

Er, why would this only apply to the English Wikipedia?

If there is a serious reason why some action needs to be taken on the
content of the projects, that applies no matter which site it is on,
and the office staff all have the good sense and professional
responsibility to take the appropriate actions with it.

Most of the time this sort of action has been necessary so far, it has
been on the English Wikipedia, so it makes sense to have a description
of what is going on there. If some projects want to give it a policy
name and a template and others don't want to, I suppose that's a
matter of choice, but I don't think that makes a real difference as to
what will actually be done if it needs to happen, and I do think it's
best to explain it on your local community.

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Stephen Bain
In reply to this post by Casey Brown-2
On 4/24/07, Casey Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I for one, would like clarification on
> this policy and its stance in Wikimedia.  Everything else, to our knowledge,
> has been updated and clarified.

I think you are misunderstanding what the office actions policy is.
You do have the genesis of understanding though:

> There is no doubt by any that the Office cannot do anything it wants
> (basically what this policy states) but the part that needs to be clarified
> is if it really is "Wikimedia-wide".

You say "the office" here but you should be saying "the Foundation".
The Foundation can, and does, step in at any time when there are
problems with the content on any of the projects. This much is not
doubted.

The only reason that the English Wikipedia has a written down office
actions policy is scale. Simply because of the size of the project,
problems requiring Foundation intervention occur more frequently on
the English Wikipedia than they do anywhere else. As such, the office
actions policy was created as a formal mechanism by which the workload
could be spread.

The policy doesn't impact the prerogative of the Foundation to
intervene where there are problems. It's just a method for carrying
that out. At the moment only the English Wikipedia, because of its
size, has needed to write this down somewhere.

--
Stephen Bain
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by daniwo59
No, the problem is that the projects aside from the english wikipedia
have never been informed of this policy, it has never been translated,
and there is no implementation procedure.

If there is an issue tomorrow on the japenese wikipedian, and cary, on
our request, go there and edit/protect the page, and put an WP:OFFICE in
the comment box, and point out to the policy on the english wikipedia,
do you really believe that "it will just do" ?

We need a more general policy on meta, and communities need to be
informed of it.

Ant

[hidden email] wrote:

>  
> So the problems that OFFICE is intended to resolve can only occur on the  
> English Wikipedia? Or alternately, so the office is only responsible for the  
> English Wikipedia?
>  
> To the best of my knowledge (and I was there), the policy was put into  place
> by Jimbo in his then capacity as Chair of the Board, with the support of  
> Brad, in his then capacity as ED. Both these titles were  foundation-wide--i.e.,
> Jimbo was chair of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation,  not just the
> English Wikipedia, and Brad was ED of the Wikimedia Foundation, not  just the
> English Wikipedia.
>  
> To me this seems like yet another attempt to isolate the office from the  
> other projects.
>  
> Danny
>  
> In a message dated 4/23/2007 6:10:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
> [hidden email] writes:
>
> For  those who do not  know,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_Actions.
>
> This  policy has been mislabeled "Wikimedia-wide" official policy until  last
> evening (EST) when Anthere and I (Cbrown1023) cleaned up the page  and
> brought it up to date.  Currently, it is just "Wikimedia" official  policy.
> There is no doubt by any that the Office cannot do anything it  wants
> (basically what this policy states) but the part that needs to be  clarified
> is if it really is "Wikimedia-wide".  Recently, we declined  two requests on
> Meta to move or transwiki the policy page to Meta because  it is labeled as
> "Wikimedia-wide official policy", but we denied it because  it is not in use
> on all of Wikimedia and it appears that it was not  intended for use outside
> of the English Wikipedia at its creation.   The first statement that it was
> used elsewhere was added by an anonymous  editor
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions&diff=935
> 35379&oldid=93466899>  &diff=93535379&oldid=93466899), before that it had
> said "official  policy on the English Wikipedia".  (Then it changed at least
> twice  more:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions&diff=994
> 58664&oldid=97871051>  &diff=99458664&oldid=97871051  and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_Actions&diff=995
> 30111&oldid=99458664>  &diff=99530111&oldid=99458664).
>
> Anthere and I deduced that it  was not really official Wikimedia policy and
> could be made to be one of it  was approved by either the Board of Trustees
> or the future Executive  Director.  I for one, would like clarification on
> this policy and its  stance in Wikimedia.  Everything else, to our knowledge,
> has been  updated and clarified.
>
> Casey  Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Gregory Maxwell
On 4/24/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> We need a more general policy on meta, and communities need to be
> informed of it.

Why the overhead?

Why don't we just wait for the need, "OMG we're doing X on jawiki!",
do what needs to be done "Brion, oversight cary on Jawiki now please!"
... and then clean up and explain after the fact.

Important cases are rare enough that I don't see the need to explain
something in a hundred languages that it will never be used in...

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
One of the reasons why it does not happen is because we do not want to know
what is out there. One good thing of making explicit that the Wikimedia
Foundation reserves the right to take measures is that it not only allows
for less hassles when it is done, it also provides some prevention. It
informs explicitly that every project has to conform to the law and to the
minimal requirements that the WMF states.

I disagree that it is overhead. It is as worthwhile as informing about
licenses, which is also a stated WMF requirement.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 4/24/07, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 4/24/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > We need a more general policy on meta, and communities need to be
> > informed of it.
>
> Why the overhead?
>
> Why don't we just wait for the need, "OMG we're doing X on jawiki!",
> do what needs to be done "Brion, oversight cary on Jawiki now please!"
> ... and then clean up and explain after the fact.
>
> Important cases are rare enough that I don't see the need to explain
> something in a hundred languages that it will never be used in...
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Michael Snow-2
In reply to this post by Casey Brown-2
Casey Brown wrote:

>Just for the record, I love the office and would love to see it on meta...
>  
>
What kind of situations does Meta have that would call for "office
actions" as they were practiced on the English Wikipedia?

With respect to the larger issue, the Wikimedia Foundation office must
have the authority to intervene on all projects when necessary for legal
reasons. It would be difficult to abdicate this. The details and process
might vary (the closure of the French Wikiquote was done rather
differently), and I wouldn't recommend referring everyone to the English
Wikipedia version as the blanket official policy, but the principle
remains the same.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Peter van Londen
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
And probably to discuss it and possibly to propose changes.

There might be a language problem, for this policy to take effect, if the
discussed content can not be read by the Office.

One of the reasons this policy has not been translated and used on other
Wikimeda-projects, is that the foundation has authority (which is also
guarded by the local admins, bureaucrats and stewards) without a written
policy to back that up. If there is no need for a written policy, I think
this having on other wikimedia-projects is not really necessary. The less
rules the better.

Kind regards, Peter van Londen

2007/4/24, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]>:

>
> No, the problem is that the projects aside from the english wikipedia
> have never been informed of this policy, it has never been translated,
> and there is no implementation procedure.
>
> If there is an issue tomorrow on the japenese wikipedian, and cary, on
> our request, go there and edit/protect the page, and put an WP:OFFICE in
> the comment box, and point out to the policy on the english wikipedia,
> do you really believe that "it will just do" ?
>
> We need a more general policy on meta, and communities need to be
> informed of it.
>
> Ant
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Robert S. Horning
In reply to this post by Casey Brown-2
Casey Brown wrote:
> Just for the record, I love the office and would love to see it on meta...
>
> Cbrown1023
>  

I always thought this was a bit unusual for a Wikimedia policy to not be
on Meta, especially when it has been invoked on projects other than
en.wikipedia.  I know it has (in the past) been invoked on Wikibooks and
a few other places as well, and certainly seems to be a policy that was
not accepted by Wikipedians but rather an assertion of Foundation
authority.  The only reason for its inclusion on Wikipedia is mainly
because that is where the bulk of such legal requests have been made,
due to the visibility of that project.

Barring some minor word changes to make it less Wikipedia-centric, I
would also support moving this policy to Meta where it likely should
have been in the first place.

-- Robert Horning

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

metasj

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Robert Horning wrote:

> I always thought this was a bit unusual for a Wikimedia policy to not be
> on Meta, especially when it has been invoked on projects other than
> en.wikipedia.

Agreed.  Anything invoked on more than one project should have a meta
page, even if it is not the most detailed one.

SJ


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Platonides
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Why the overhead?
>
> Why don't we just wait for the need, "OMG we're doing X on jawiki!",
> do what needs to be done "Brion, oversight cary on Jawiki now please!"
> ... and then clean up and explain after the fact.
>
> Important cases are rare enough that I don't see the need to explain
> something in a hundred languages that it will never be used in...

I completely agree.

"Wikimedia Foundation removing an article for a legal threat" is imho a
concept simple enough for being understood by our Wikimedians.


GerardM thinks it's not used due to "not knowing it's out there". I feel
it's the other way round.
If normal people doesn't know about it, they will only troll a bit at
the Village Pump, Administrators Noticeboard and quit. Things are
managed inside. While a person being serious about suing won't stop by
not seeing a policy supporting it.
So with current approach only important cases arrive to the office,
which is good.


Two weeks ago, a new user which had been trying to push his PV about
canibalism in American natives, wrote a "letter to the Wikipedians" on a
free host, where we were required to remove the content opposed to it
from 50 articles (not mentioned which), adding them a chapter explaining
why it was wrong and also have permanent excuses about it on the Main Page.
It ended stating that if not following them after being warned,
Wikipedia could be demanded by "cultural associations and american states".
All of this was said as comng from the "the Raelian movement", as this
man seems to be a local coordinator (note there was no relationship
between Raelianism and the issue, nor any endorsement from the Raelian
movement).

There were three "replies" [1],[2],[3] and all of them mentioned the
ability of referring to WMF.

Not only there wasn't an Office action on our main page, as i'm now
writing this i discovered the original webpage has been changed[4] into
simply explaining his points.

I don't really know if he really contacted foundation (i doubt) but
impossible claims (suing an entity by a webpage) should be kept apart of
normal work if possible.

In an Internet which can be censored with a hotmail account [5], making
policies of "we can be censored by the office" where in the office the
case will be judged by someone which doesn't even read the language the
dispute is on and has never heard of that "fascist communist censoring
sysop" is *dangerous*.

On the other hand, knowing we have the WMF with a lawyer able to defend
NPV is a relief... but it's a knowledge only for advanced wikipedians ;)


1-http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikies-l/2007-April/001703.html
2-http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikies-l/2007-April/001714.html
3-http://nidododo.blogspot.com/2007/04/los-raelianos-amenazan-con-demandar.html
4-I keep a local copy of the original.
5-http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/10/09/1929259.shtml


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
A nice expose that is completely beside the point. The point of discussion
is: do we need to translate policies to other languages. Your example is
about an English language article.

What do you know/care about issues on projects in other languages ?

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 4/24/07, Platonides <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > Why the overhead?
> >
> > Why don't we just wait for the need, "OMG we're doing X on jawiki!",
> > do what needs to be done "Brion, oversight cary on Jawiki now please!"
> > ... and then clean up and explain after the fact.
> >
> > Important cases are rare enough that I don't see the need to explain
> > something in a hundred languages that it will never be used in...
>
> I completely agree.
>
> "Wikimedia Foundation removing an article for a legal threat" is imho a
> concept simple enough for being understood by our Wikimedians.
>
>
> GerardM thinks it's not used due to "not knowing it's out there". I feel
> it's the other way round.
> If normal people doesn't know about it, they will only troll a bit at
> the Village Pump, Administrators Noticeboard and quit. Things are
> managed inside. While a person being serious about suing won't stop by
> not seeing a policy supporting it.
> So with current approach only important cases arrive to the office,
> which is good.
>
>
> Two weeks ago, a new user which had been trying to push his PV about
> canibalism in American natives, wrote a "letter to the Wikipedians" on a
> free host, where we were required to remove the content opposed to it
> from 50 articles (not mentioned which), adding them a chapter explaining
> why it was wrong and also have permanent excuses about it on the Main
> Page.
> It ended stating that if not following them after being warned,
> Wikipedia could be demanded by "cultural associations and american
> states".
> All of this was said as comng from the "the Raelian movement", as this
> man seems to be a local coordinator (note there was no relationship
> between Raelianism and the issue, nor any endorsement from the Raelian
> movement).
>
> There were three "replies" [1],[2],[3] and all of them mentioned the
> ability of referring to WMF.
>
> Not only there wasn't an Office action on our main page, as i'm now
> writing this i discovered the original webpage has been changed[4] into
> simply explaining his points.
>
> I don't really know if he really contacted foundation (i doubt) but
> impossible claims (suing an entity by a webpage) should be kept apart of
> normal work if possible.
>
> In an Internet which can be censored with a hotmail account [5], making
> policies of "we can be censored by the office" where in the office the
> case will be judged by someone which doesn't even read the language the
> dispute is on and has never heard of that "fascist communist censoring
> sysop" is *dangerous*.
>
> On the other hand, knowing we have the WMF with a lawyer able to defend
> NPV is a relief... but it's a knowledge only for advanced wikipedians ;)
>
>
> 1-http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikies-l/2007-April/001703.html
> 2-http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikies-l/2007-April/001714.html
> 3-
> http://nidododo.blogspot.com/2007/04/los-raelianos-amenazan-con-demandar.html
> 4-I keep a local copy of the original.
> 5-http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/10/09/1929259.shtml
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Casey Brown-2
I think it's quite obvious that WP:OFFICE (at least in essence, if not
detail) applies to all Wikimedia projects, and as such should be on
meta and translated into all appropriate languages. What really is
there to discuss?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Platonides
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> A nice expose that is completely beside the point.
Yes, i disgressed a bit :P


> Your example is about an English language article.
No, it was in spanish (es.wikipedia), as you can see its references are
not on english. Wiki article was deleted.

 > The point of discussion is: do we need to translate policies to other
languages.
> What do you know/care about issues on projects in other languages ?
We don't need to publish it on every project. It encourages "whingering
at Jimmy Wales talk page" (to the office in this case).

However, knowing there's an office to forward "i'll demand you" trolls
can be good.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Cary Bass-3
Platonides wrote:

> No, it was in spanish (es.wikipedia), as you can see its references are
> not on english. Wiki article was deleted.
>
>  > The point of discussion is: do we need to translate policies to other
> languages.
>  
>> What do you know/care about issues on projects in other languages ?
>>    
> We don't need to publish it on every project. It encourages "whingering
> at Jimmy Wales talk page" (to the office in this case).
>
>  
Don't forget, you can whine at Sandra O. (and me, to a lesser extent) in
Spanish.  

/me cringes at the thought of "WP:OFICINA" ...     :)

-c
(bastique)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Titoxd@Wikimedia
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Considering that Platonides is a bibliotecario on es.wikipedia, that
questions seems a bit irrelevant.
Now, if you need to translate a policy to another language, particularly a
foundation-wide policy, it is not necessary for it to be in Meta. You can
copy it from en.wikipedia, BoardWiki, Commons, or heck, even the Siberian
Wikipedia, and that will not invalidate its status as a policy. So what is
the entire fuss about? You can always transwiki WP:OFFICE to Meta later,
that is not an obstacle.
Titoxd.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of GerardM
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 5:40 AM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia:Office Actions

Hoi,
A nice expose that is completely beside the point. The point of discussion
is: do we need to translate policies to other languages. Your example is
about an English language article.

What do you know/care about issues on projects in other languages ?

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 4/24/07, Platonides <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > Why the overhead?
> >
> > Why don't we just wait for the need, "OMG we're doing X on jawiki!",
> > do what needs to be done "Brion, oversight cary on Jawiki now please!"
> > ... and then clean up and explain after the fact.
> >
> > Important cases are rare enough that I don't see the need to explain
> > something in a hundred languages that it will never be used in...
>
> I completely agree.
>
> "Wikimedia Foundation removing an article for a legal threat" is imho a
> concept simple enough for being understood by our Wikimedians.
>
>
> GerardM thinks it's not used due to "not knowing it's out there". I feel
> it's the other way round.
> If normal people doesn't know about it, they will only troll a bit at
> the Village Pump, Administrators Noticeboard and quit. Things are
> managed inside. While a person being serious about suing won't stop by
> not seeing a policy supporting it.
> So with current approach only important cases arrive to the office,
> which is good.
>
>
> Two weeks ago, a new user which had been trying to push his PV about
> canibalism in American natives, wrote a "letter to the Wikipedians" on a
> free host, where we were required to remove the content opposed to it
> from 50 articles (not mentioned which), adding them a chapter explaining
> why it was wrong and also have permanent excuses about it on the Main
> Page.
> It ended stating that if not following them after being warned,
> Wikipedia could be demanded by "cultural associations and american
> states".
> All of this was said as comng from the "the Raelian movement", as this
> man seems to be a local coordinator (note there was no relationship
> between Raelianism and the issue, nor any endorsement from the Raelian
> movement).
>
> There were three "replies" [1],[2],[3] and all of them mentioned the
> ability of referring to WMF.
>
> Not only there wasn't an Office action on our main page, as i'm now
> writing this i discovered the original webpage has been changed[4] into
> simply explaining his points.
>
> I don't really know if he really contacted foundation (i doubt) but
> impossible claims (suing an entity by a webpage) should be kept apart of
> normal work if possible.
>
> In an Internet which can be censored with a hotmail account [5], making
> policies of "we can be censored by the office" where in the office the
> case will be judged by someone which doesn't even read the language the
> dispute is on and has never heard of that "fascist communist censoring
> sysop" is *dangerous*.
>
> On the other hand, knowing we have the WMF with a lawyer able to defend
> NPV is a relief... but it's a knowledge only for advanced wikipedians ;)
>
>
> 1-http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikies-l/2007-April/001703.html
> 2-http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikies-l/2007-April/001714.html
> 3-
>
http://nidododo.blogspot.com/2007/04/los-raelianos-amenazan-con-demandar.htm
l
> 4-I keep a local copy of the original.
> 5-http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/10/09/1929259.shtml
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Platonides
In reply to this post by Cary Bass-3
Cary Bass wrote:
> Don't forget, you can whine at Sandra O. (and me, to a lesser extent) in
> Spanish.  
>
> /me cringes at the thought of "WP:OFICINA" ...     :)
> -c
> (bastique)

Oh, i didn't realise you were es-2 :)

es is known enough to be safe about this (though still lacking the
knowledge about community background).
But if this were a more bizarre language, i foresee the problems.

It was hard enough to translate it to see the problems there can have.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikipedia:Office Actions

Casey Brown-2
In reply to this post by Michael Snow-2
I was referring to the policy being on Meta since Meta is the central
repository for policies and information that applies cross-wiki.

Cbrown1023

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Snow
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:18 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia:Office Actions

Casey Brown wrote:

>Just for the record, I love the office and would love to see it on meta...
>  
>
What kind of situations does Meta have that would call for "office
actions" as they were practiced on the English Wikipedia?

With respect to the larger issue, the Wikimedia Foundation office must
have the authority to intervene on all projects when necessary for legal
reasons. It would be difficult to abdicate this. The details and process
might vary (the closure of the French Wikiquote was done rather
differently), and I wouldn't recommend referring everyone to the English
Wikipedia version as the blanket official policy, but the principle
remains the same.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
1234