[Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
tarc at hotmail.com
Tue Jul 3 19:20:11 UTC 2012
IMO Office staff do not "count" in that way. An Office Action is by definition something directed from on high to resolve a matter that a local community is either unable or (in this particular case) unwilling to do i na timely manner. Issues of legality take precedence over sometimes-byzantine bylaws of an internet consortium.
I am no admin or Wiki authority figure, but I was involved in this situation. In this case, the dots were connected between a Wikimedia user and a real-life person convicted of certain crimes. This person needed to be shut out of the project immediately. Commons would not do it, so it was done above them. It reflects poorly on the Commons that one of their administrators still carries this story like a gruge, even linking to their grievance list in their signature line.
> From: berialima at gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:09:39 -0300
> To: wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
> Phillipe, a global ban, even by the policy proposed, requires more than 2
> communities agreeing that the ban is necessary, as far as I know, even if
> we count the office staff as one "community" that is only one.
> At least the guy know why he was blocked? And what is the guarantee we have
> that tomorrow you (you here as "staff") won't block me or anyone else using
> "office action" as reason?
> *Béria Lima*
> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
> On 3 July 2012 16:05, Philippe Beaudette <philippe at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Theo10011 <de10011 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > my
> > > question was simple was OFFICE action used before to block someone,
> > > globally or locally?
> > >
> > To the best of my knowledge, no.
> > And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We
> > would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn
> > to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I
> > wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
> > can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
> > Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again.
> > pb
> > ___________________
> > Philippe Beaudette
> > Director, Community Advocacy
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > 415-839-6885, x 6643
> > philippe at wikimedia.org
> > <philippe at wikimedia.org>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
More information about the Wikimedia-l