[WikiEN-l] WP:OFFICE actions

[Fred Bauder]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Guy Chapman aka JzG [mailto:guy.chapman at spamcop.net]
>Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 02:25 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] WP:OFFICE actions
>
>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}}?
>
>Guy (JzG)
>-- 
>http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

What is lacking is well administered policy. When there is such a vacuum the problem ends up in the Office. With respect to persons there is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and its corresponding noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. With respect to enterprises, such as Pacific_Western_University, there is Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises. Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises is only an attempt at policy making, "currently inactive and kept for historical purposes". Appeals to the Office to support this policy have not been responded to.

While we discourage individuals or enterprises  from editing their own articles, it is sometimes very helpful if we are in communication with them on the talk page of their article. When the only communication is through the Office, perhaps through legal counsel, feedback is delayed and perhaps mediated more than is useful for editors crafting the article.

Fred