[Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] WP:OFFICE actions

[Ray Saintonge]

David Gerard wrote:

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net>
>
>I raised this a while back.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Western_University was office
>protected.  Editors had gathered some well-cited material, Jimbo said
>go ahead and rewrite, so we did.  It got hacked back again.  I don't
>have a problem with this, as Brad has now old us what the concern was,
>and we can work with that.  I do have a problem with a couple of
>elements of process:
>
>* The problem was not communicated until after the event, resulting in
>another pissed-off phone call to Brad which could have been avoided.
>
>* I was told the new version was not "cleared with foundation" but no
>mechanism exists for doing that, else I would have done so.
>
>* Brad (or Danny or Jimbo) does not scale.  People get impatient when
>months go by with no explanation of why we cannot say something which
>is, or appears to be, verifiably true.  This was a particular problem
>with the article on Gregory Lauder-Frost.
>
>So what should be the process for getting foundation approval for a
>rewrite where an article subject has made a complaint causing
>protection, and how can we ensure that the substance of the complaint
>is communicated (to the extent possible without compromising the
>various parties)?
>
>Is it possible to facilitate communication direct with the parties
>where errors of fact are the problem, to let them know in advance when
>changes are to be made?
>
>And where an external source (in this case Bear's Guide) says that two
>institutions are run by the same people out of the same address, and
>no known sources say otherwise, but the subject insists they are
>different, how do we go about validating that?  It's all very well for
>them to say they are different, but surely that gets {{fact}}?
>
In a manner similar to what I have said before in relation to copyright 
problems protocols need to be established for dealing with these 
situations with legal implications.  If the person responding to the 
call feels that there is some merit to the complaint, that would require 
strict adherence to that protocol.  Criteria for sourcing and 
verifiability are a separate issue since they would apply whether or not 
there is a telephone complaint.  The protocol is important for ensuring 
that we are not working at cross purposes.  That requires proper and 
timely information about the complaint that caused the Office to Act.  
With that information available it is much easier to follow the 
rationale for it.  What does not work is an authoritarian edict from the 
Office.  The Office should know by now that such edicts are normally 
followed by a storm of protest.

Ec