[Foundation-l] Wikipedia:Office Actions

[Marco Chiesa]

Sebastian Moleski 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.
>
>  
>
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