What was the instigation? If its a copyright reason, I doubt there will be any reaction. On 4/24/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: -- -Brock

Thank you, Anthere, I think this proves we need to upload it to meta and actually enforce it project wide. Cbrown1023 -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Florence Devouard Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 7:30 PM To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia:Office Actions It was a logo, taggued public domain. The office action held less than 30 mn. A new logo was uploaded (very very poor quality) and replaced on the page. No comment was added on the talk page. Outcome: Office action rejected. Anthere _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Florence Devouard wrote: Why is there a need for an office action in this case? My understand is that office actions are for time-sensitive matters that are particularly unusual. Deleting copyright violations is a very normal thing that we do routinely; there's no need for some sort of Official Intervention to do so, and even Normal Wikipedians can request such deletions and have their requests honored. -Mark

On 4/25/07, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: You can be forgiven for your confusion, as there were multiple postings by Florence in this thread with only slightly differing content. I think the relevant bit is in the fullest of those postings as follows: "It was a logo, taggued public domain. Request received for a take down. Legal analysis on it, and recommandation to indeed remove the logo." Note take down request is not normal routine. It does need consulting legal eagles and acting without haste. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

Again I will state: I don't understand that you want to repair something which is not broken. If there is a necessity (mainly the EN:WP) you formalize office-actions there. If there is not a necessity, because the community accepts authority from the Foundation (without a policy backing this up): you don't need to enforce it on all the projects. Apparently there is one project which needs this policy (EN:WP) and there might be 2 or 3 others; enforcing it project-wide is unnecessary and premature. Kind regards, Londenp 2007/4/25, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com>om>:

I don't see the relevance of your answer. What does that have to do with the fact that this policy is unnecessary for many projects, where the Foundation still has some authority left and these problems do not occur? It is just a matter of opinion: if it is not broken: don't try to fix it. Apparently in this example you mention: it is broken, the Foundation lost its authority (so clearly that not even Office works), so fix it there. There is no need to fix it project-wide (certainly when most office workers will have knowledge of a few languages like every normal person). This problem seems to be very limited compared to the total projects the Foundation has. Simply asking a steward or representative from that certain community will do in most cases and will be better accepted by the smaller communities, than someone they don't know removes a part of their content. In some issues it is better to have it fixed at the top. In this case not: I would use the network of stewards and other people in stead of forcing it upon the project instead. Bureaucracy is not the goal here. Kind regards, Londenp 2007/4/25, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:

2007/4/25, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com>om>: Because it is yet another rule. My idea is to have only so many rules as necessary (although I see there is a correlation between the amount of rules and the scale of the project, but in fact I do not understand why this would have to be the case). If not necessary: no rules, work with consensus, and common sense. It used to work like that in the past as well. In fact it is a EN:WP rule forced on the rest of the projects, without asking consent or informing the other projects in a proper way. Hypothetically, this might be the case: the reality says it is not much of a problem outside EN:WP. Trust the trusted user (that is what a admin/bureaucrat/steward is) to do the right thing in case something like this happens. Let's just have a policy that states that these actions can be done, agreed. no difference of opinion here, only I would recommend to use the peoples network. It is still better that someone from the community does the deletion than someone else, users from the community do not know and are in fact no member of the community (certainly when this policy is unknown, not many community members read and use meta). -- Kind regards Londenp foundation-l mailing list

Is it ridiculous, really? Is this your normal way of communication Mr Gerard? It is everywhere the same: one tries to demonize a message/person by taking a small part of a bigger message to try to discredit the total message and credibility of a certain person. I don't like this way of communication at all, it is unworthy. Besides it gives an idea that the total message has not been read by you. No idea how you come to the conclusion I would mean that the Foundation is een EN:WP matter forced on the rest of the projects, I wil give one comment on that: The Foundation still has a lot of credit in the smaller communities, which, by needing this policy for EN:WP, seems to be different for EN:WP. It was a problem on the EN:WP, right? This policy was made for solving this problem on the EN:WP, right? Until now I guess it was debated on EN:WP only right? Need I to go on? Anyhow: you can put this policy projects-wide, without proper informing other projects, without giving them the possibility to have their say, it will not be your problem, but the problem for the office once they try to enforce this, when necessary, on an project where this was not properly introduced. There is an easier and less bureaucratic way: use the network of trusted people. Kind regards, Londenp 2007/4/25, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

You did the same thing again, Mr Gerard: explanation seems futile. For all the other people this is my proposal, how to work with office actions (probably excluding EN:WP, where office-members might be known). In order to help the office with these kind of actions. We have on many projects OTRS-systems in place. If there is a necessity to delete or change content on an other project then on EN:WP let the office-people write an e-mail to the OTRS of that particular project (these e-mail addresses have been made available to the Office). Copyright/privacy/slander is a good reason for speedy or immediate deletion, so OTRS-people can take care of that and immediately. Advantage: *action is just as fast *deleting content will be more readily accepted by the community if a community member does the deletion; this will prevent partly reuploading, but also take care of immediate redeletion in case of reuploading *deleting this copyright is now made the responsibility of the community, so that the office does not need to follow this up frequently (and loose a lot of valuable time for that). *there is no need for yet another policy, nor the introduction of the policy to all the different communities For smaller communities (which until now do not have this problem anyhow) without an OTRS other people could be used for office actions, that is for example stewards. In my opinion the Foundation can trust the trusted people (admins, bureaucrats and stewards) to do the right thing, certainly as the Foundation still has a lot of credit out there. Kind regards, Londenp 2007/4/25, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

I find this discussion quite strange. Certainly, WP:OFFICE is valid on all projects. Certainly, if this policy exists only in english and it was never communicated to any projects except en that there is such a policy, enforcing this policy on other projects except en will inevitably result in a fight. In particular, there should be an office-account on every wiki, which does only office actions. Asking an admin in IRC to do something is IMHO not the right way to do this. Bye, Philipp

On 4/26/07, Peter van Londen <londenp(a)gmail.com> wrote: You know, I wished that was the case. Unfortunately, I've seen the discussion this incident caused on the project in question. It didn't quite go that way until some calmer minds proposed a different way to resolve this issue. I would have hoped for a reasonable, respectful reaction (even though this was a first time office action named as such on this wiki) but was surprised to see that the response was rather hostile. This is also why I think that the issue of office actions need to be dealt with in a manner consistent with the customs of each community. It's not something that should lead to a lot of conflict or confusion. Sebastian

Sebastian Moleski wrote: My 2 cents. So far it appears that WP:OFFICE is a policy only valid on en.wp, because that's where the policy is written. Now, most of the people working on other projects have no clue of en.wiki policies, nor they're interested in them. En.wp may be the largest project, but at the end of the day it's just ONE project. I'm 100% in favour of having WP:OFFICE on all the projects, because there are cases when it is needed, if we are requested to take down defamatory content, we have to do it and of course there cannot be a public discussion on doing so. But then if one sees an almost unknown username deleting content with the summary WP:OFFICE, one is tempted to think it's just vandalism. Most people would find it strange to have an unknown person with sysop rights, and one may be tempted to think of a vandal with admin rights. So, I think it would be more than fair to tell the projects that office actions can happen, people will understand. On a slightly related topic, people on it.wiki got upset because a certain website was blacklisted on meta because of a ruling of en.wp Arbcom, and as a result that website was whitelisted on it.wp. I think it should be made clear what are en.wp policies and what are wikimedia-wide policies, and these should be on meta. Cruccone

On 26/04/07, Peter van Londen <londenp(a)gmail.com> wrote: The point being missed here is that WP:OFFICE on en:wp is not prescriptive - it is descriptive. It does not set out a policy to be applied, it describes what actually happens. The actions came first, the description later. That is: it already applies by default to all projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation - whether a page saying so exists already or not. What that page says and how it works may need a lot of attention. But the policy (that the Foundation can do things because it has to) exists already, because the Foundation hosts the wikis. - d.

Hoi, Peter, when you get a "take down" notice, this is presented to an organisation. No project has the status of an organisation and consequently the organisation embodied in the "Office" has to have a way to take the action that it has to take by law. What you describe is nice, it however does not work because it does not scale. The organisation does not know all projects and, the organisation does not have enough staff to get to know all projects. Furthermore there are other things that this same staff has to do. Yes, in a perfect world you would cooperate with the admins and community of the projects. Realistically there are plenty people in any project that are irresponsible. This thread started with the notion that this policy needs to be translated. I would welcome it when the policy is described in such a way that there is an "ambassador" for the organisation in each project. A person trusted to communicate about issues and will be allowed to say by the community: "shut up, this has to be". Thanks, GerardM On 4/26/07, Peter van Londen <londenp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

(1) I want to make clear to anyone still reading this thread that the existence of Foundation authority to have final say-so over something involving a legal threat, which in the eyes of the Foundation and its counsel (meaning, explicitly, the board in consultation with lawyers) is sufficient to merit action, is *non-negotiable*. Anarchists, free love for everyone types and anyone else who disagrees with that statement on principle needs to get past it. Simply put - if you disagree the Foundation has the *authority* to do it, you are wrong. (2) Assuming (1) is true, *whether* the Foundation (explicitly meaning the board, acting through its own employees or lawyers) chooses to act in any particular circumstance is a matter of judgment on which people can disagree for many reasons. The facts of a particular circumstance mean it will always be a case of "it depends." (3) People who "trust" (in the sense of being more willing to accept) the actions of individual users in any particular project over the WP:OFFICE actions of the Foundation board members (who have an irrevocable fiduciary duty to the Foundation) or staff (who are employed by the Foundation) are either (a) misguided in their understanding of the policy (which may be reasonable given this thread) (b) have their priorities upside-down (project over Foundation) or (c) are simply newbies who haven't learned how this is structured. The answer to someone who is suspicious of an action is ASSUME GOOD FAITH *precisely* because it is the Foundation acting. Volunteers come and go, the Foundation is the Foundation. That is what matters. The fact this discussion is occurring is evidence of a lack of communication, but I fear the suggestion of hyperexpansion of policy pages will stir things up in ways that are in the end, unfortunate. EN:WP has been the historic source of this for many and obvious reasons. GMaxwell got it right - if it is this rare, don't overdesign. Just deal with it responsibly. Bottom line: All legal threats should be brought to the attention of the Foundation office, no matter what the project, language or country. Don't try to forge an answer yourself if the legal threat is a real one. And if you can't tell the difference, you have no business addressing the threat at all. Brad Patrick *Former* General Counsel and interim Executive Director.

Brad Patrick wrote: Erm I just noticed this, but I'd have to disagree wholeheartedly. The Foundation can come and go; the projects are the only reason for its existence, and it does not matter one whit independently of its support for them. They can outlast it and be supported by a new Foundation if for some reason this becomes necessary, though of course this is not to be sought out. -Mark

Nowhere did I disagree with office actions, merely with the sentiment that the Foundation trumps all concerns, including for the project, because "the Foundation is what matters". The Foundation does not in itself matter *at all*; it matters exclusively insofar as it supports our projects. I support office actions to the extent that they are consistent with the overall progress of our projects, taking all factors into account, which I think for the most part they are. -Mark GerardM wrote:

Hoi, That is beside your point. Thanks, Gerard On 4/27/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

You are right, I don't think anyone on this list disagrees with your number (1), but the problem really is with (3). What fact is and should be done and accepted by the communities (i.e. accept an "intrusion" by the Office in what the community see as, how untrue, their affairs) is different of how the Foundation/Office is seen by the communities. Jimbo as his former roll as the "God-King" is different than the present roll of Board and the Staff (also in perceived authority). The action from Anthere together with someone on IRC and the outcome afterwards makes perfectly clear that the policy is not the solution here. What can you really do when your policy says the office can remove content, but the community decides to act counterwise after the office has done their action and left: put a guard dog there? This is a fundamental flaw in the policy: you do not delegate the problem (or the follow-up of the problem) to the particular community; a lot of people reacting in this thread says in fact the community can not be trusted with this, I politely disagree. There are several ways how you can solve this apparent lack of trust to and authority of the Foundation. 1) The hard way: push all your policies in place, make a bureaucracy, make the people accept it (confrontation) 2) Build up the position of the Foundation in the communities, communicate and let them trust you (maybe backed up by a policy, but this would not be needed then anyhow). The long way, you have to put in a lot of work and time (which seems to be lacking anyhow, seeing what the board has to accomplish in short time). 3) Follow-up on the decentralizing process started with the local chapters (but local chapters do not have much to say until now), so that is give the local chapters more power so they will be able to solve their own problems. 4) Use the existing structures and networks: i.e. delegation of these problems. And if this does not work, you can always push through afterwards. What stunned me is your statement that the Foundation is the Foundation and the volunteers are the volunteers and what that seems to imply. The foundation is mostly made up of volunteers itself !! and the content/communities are the assets (see a different thread on that): If the Foundation cease to exist (which is not unimaginable), there will be (maybe after some time) another Foundation. I don't see how content/communities would not be able to survive in this process. The core of the different communities are certainly dedicated to the ideal (maybe even more because they are not paid for that). Anyhow my idea was to *help* the Office, but if one wants to do it the hard way: it is their choice. Kind regards, Londenp 2007/4/27, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com>om>:

On 4/27/07, Peter Jacobi <pjacobi.de(a)googlemail.com> wrote: for the ones who understand german: it's http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/27._April_2007#… Michael

Hello, now we have a house lawyer again. It means we will see WP:OFFICE activated even at least on English Wikipedia? On 4/27/07, P. Birken <pbirken(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *

On 7/14/07, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com> wrote: I wouldn't presume to speak for Delirium, but in my humble opinion, you very widely miss his point. There is a pre-existing legal framework to the legal existence of the Foundation. And that is that the content is published under GFDL. Sorry if that isn't welcome news to you. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

Brad Patrick wrote: I suspect that if counsel became involved every time someone in the mailing lists said, "We need a lawyer's opinion on this," he would soon be overwhelmed. Ec

On 4/27/07, Peter Jacobi <pjacobi.de(a)googlemail.com> wrote: And kept, at least for now. I'd imagine the three big issues a description page might deal with are: (1) how do we tell if something is or isn't an office action? (2) why are office actions usually performed? (3) under what circumstances, if any, can office actions be reversed, discussed, or modified? Obviously the foundation has this authority on every WMF wiki, implicitly. In a situation where many new users aren't even aware the foundation *exists*, however, I believe a description page is less for the benefit of the foundation, and more for the confused users who will be left with a smoldering pile of ash where their article used to be. Not to say office actions are bad. I readily recognize that they're very important. But to a new user, I suspect they're almost like the act of an angry god. When dealing with such an entity, it's nice if the deity provides you with simple guidelines to avoid future smiting, or to generally explain that what they're doing is in everyone's best interest, even if they may not always elaborate in full. If you guys really insist on avoiding a description page on meta, you know people will only wind up linking to the en.wikipedia version, anyway. Just my thought, -Luna

On 4/25/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: People frequently re-upload copyvios unless you make it really clear they should not. -- geni

Andre Engels wrote: OFFICE actions should be exceptional, and should never be a vehicle to push someone's POV. They should reflect a credible and imminent likelihood of legal action. Where libel is the alleged offence it should provide an opportunity for senior responsible editors to make a dlligent review the information in the article to insure that what is said is not libellous. Once that has been done it should not prevent the substantiated material from being restored. This is not about copyright violations. These should be kept out of the OFFICE action system completely. There are already rules in law that give a copyright owner the opportunity to challenge infringements of his copyrights so that they will be taken down. If the copyright owner has not personally made any complaints whatsoever _any_ use of OFFICE for this should be viewed as abusive. If WMF steps in to make a finding of fact in what is otherwise an honest dispute about whether a particular passage is a copyright infringement it does not decrease its exposure to liability, it increases it. It proclaims editorial control that would not be there if it were only a pure ISP. Such a stand by the Foundation is not tantamount to permitting any copyvio that a person puts into a project. It is enough that WMF has a copyright policy in place; it does have that, and that policy is already more conservative than what is found in US law. That does not mean that it should be in the business of finding fact. Even when an outsider complains that his copyrights have been violated it is still not in a position to determine facts. It must, however, respond appropriately to legal demands on both sides of the issue; it has no obligation at all to respond to third parties that lack any personal interest in the matter. Most disputes about these things must be solved at the project level. Maintaining an editorial distance between WMF and the projects is absolutely vital! It becomes very difficult to do this when the pprojects ask the Foundation to solve problems that they should be solving themselves. Ec