Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by WMF Office

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  Keep but discuss a move/merge target. Based on my reading of this discussion, the arguments in favour of deletion are a) we don't record bans on Wikipedia pages, b) if the WMF would need such a page they could create it, c) it's redundant to the WMFOffice log page, d) a lack of need (as it's redundant to the user page and block log messages placed by WMFOffice). The keep arguments are a) admins and editors need to know about WMF-created restrictions so that they can observe/not interfere with them and also for general accountability reasons, c) the WMFOffice log page is cluttered. One additional suggestion has been made to move/merge (to WP:OFFICE) the page, if it is misplaced, although a lot of editors haven't specified a target title.

From reading the discussion, it seems that the headcount favours keeping and that for every delete argument there is a valid keep argument as well, with the exception of the "we don't record bans under WP:RESTRICT" which however is more a rename argument. Many of the keep arguments do not require that the list be under this name, so that leaves the question of a rename (or merge to WP:OFFICE) open. Seeing as a lot of people have not specified a merge/rename target even when supporting one I won't call this a consensus for a move/merge, but it is certainly worth having a further discussion on it; thus that will be the conclusion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by WMF Office


We have never had an "editing restriction" handed down by the WMF Office. Fram is not under an editing restriction; it is a ban. We do not list bans at WP:RESTRICT, and thus there's zero reason to have this page. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

However, it's a list of one user. The preferred location would be at meta for this sort of stuff. That way, you could list the users banned on de.wiki, zh.wiki, etc. There's plenty of reasons not keep this page as it stands though that have not been mentioned. We shouldn't be logging WMF imposed editing restrictions (using this term as it's actually defined in our policies right now). There is a good reason why WMF announced Fram's ban but not his (alleged- according to Fram that is ) I-ban with another user (diff withheld for privacy). Are we really going to have people publicly announce their I-Ban's with users here on wiki just so we can catalogue them? You're dealing with private info right there anyways. Now you are putting that stuff out there publicly with zero context? Very poor idea. It was private for a reason, and now you are opening people up to attacks that don't warrant them. That's just my pointless opinion on the matter, though. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Look at the earliest diffs of Editing restrictions. Who are the two editors who created that page? We are not bound by past practice. We do whatever works best. Jehochman Talk 23:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apt nomination. Were this page needed by WMF, they would surely see to it that it gets created. There is no need for the community to create such a page in the meantime. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting here that I just informed Jehochman to this MFD as the primary contributor to this page. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This page is needed to prevent admins from accidentally interfering, and to help hold WMF accountable for their actions. It is telling that they didn’t create such a page themselves. Jehochman Talk 13:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I get people are still in a ferver about this hole WP:FRAMBAN situation, but pages like this are going to cause more harm than they ever could be worth. As has pointed out multiple times: Fram is site-banned; not restricted from certain types of pages. The following are specific types of editing restrictions: Account restriction, Civility restriction, Probation (supervised editing), Move ban, Revert restriction, Topic ban, Article ban or page ban, and Interaction ban. What isn't there? Sitebans. Therefore at a minimum, this page needs to be renamed.
 * Well, okay; that was not what I expected. I've never been so shot down in my life rn. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete editors who are subject to site bans are listed at Category:Banned Wikipedia users instead [of at Editing restrictions]. Thus, although it may be a good idea to add User:Fram to Category:Banned Wikipedia users, the siteban does not belong at Editing restrictions. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, I did find that we have Category:Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. We need to have a list of what WMF Office has done, like it or hate it. Making their actions hard to track serves no good interest. Feel free to rename the page or make it a subpage of some other more appropriate page. Those are not reasons to delete. Jehochman Talk 20:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , genuinely out of curiosity, why are the other WMF Office bans not listed here? Primefac (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody has added them yet. Please feel free to do so. I think it’s a mistake for us to separate the lists of bans and other restrictions. We need transparency of all these actions. Corruption thrives in the shadows. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Listing office sitebans but not community and arbcom sitebans at editing restrictions is not a step toward un-separating the list. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but retitle per Jehochman. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and light it on fire. There is nothing helpful about this and it's logged on meta already. Praxidicae (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Where? --Rschen7754 21:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Log/WMFOffice for starters. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Right here. Praxidicae (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see Fram on that list. And Special:Log/WMFOffice (and the Meta version) is too hard to use as it is cluttered with alternate accounts and block-evading IPs. --Rschen7754 16:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Um... just as a note, there are 13 items on Special:Log/WMFOffice. And if you select just the block log, that drops down to 5. No comment on meta though. Primefac (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are 13 items on there right now. If WMF performs more bans or if any of those users create socks, that number will quickly grow. That list is also not comprehensive as there are users globally banned where no local action was taken on enwiki. --Rschen7754 16:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jehochman. A list of what WP:OFFICE has done should be kept here.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But sitebans aren't normally listed at Editing restrictions. I don't think anybody disagrees that were the office to impose a non-site ban it would properly belong on this subpage. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see why it needs to be listed anywhere. Bad facts make bad cases.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. We need to know when this is happening and to whom. If the editing restrictions page isn't the best place for it, it should be moved rather than deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd rather delete it, but we need this record. --Rschen7754 21:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Related to the project. MfD is not a forum for policy discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC). Rename to  Editing restrictions/ WMF Office. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to turn this into a policy discussion. WP:RESTRICT is not for site bans, and I have no issue if it's decided that the page should be kept and renamed to something other than a RESTRICT subpage. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. Merge & redirect to Office actions per User:SilkTork below (23:37, 24 June 2019). Is it an accidental fork?  Include links to relevant logs at Office actions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, but retitle per Jehochman - This should be more about Office actions taken, as well as which ones remain in effect and which ones have been mooted somehow. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 22:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per Jehochman, NYB and others. Definitely relevant.  Mini  apolis  00:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename per Jehochman. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename' per Jehochman, NYB and others. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The argument, This page is needed to prevent admins from accidentally interfering is unconvincing.  Such actions are already logged, as stated above, at Special:Log/WMFOffice.  I could see somebody not being aware that Special:Log/WMFOffice existed.  I wasn't even aware of it before now.  However, such banned users also get unambiguous banners placed on their home pages: User:Fram, User:İrada, User:Liliana-60, User:Graaf Statler, and an entry made in Special:Log/block.  Any admin who performed even the most cursory inspection, would notice at least one of the later two before taking any action.  If anything, this manually-maintained list will increase the odds of an accidental action, since it's likely to be out of sync with the official logs (as it is right now); any admin who consulted this list as their due diligence prior to unblocking would get a false picture of the real state of things.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That calls for fixing it, include a link to the log. It doesn’t call for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What additional value is added by copying the log entries to a manually-maintained list? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Link to, not copy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were saying we should keep the manually-maintained table, and in addition, provide a link to the log.  If you're saying that we should just provide the link, and not copy any of the data, then I'm fine with that.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I had no idea about this log, it’s existence let alone where to find it.  The creation of a WP page as a manual log is evidence that someone feels it is needed.  There will be others.  WP pages that explain logs are very helpful.  Deletion of this page could lead to more confused people in future, wondering “what was the unacceptable content” or “why was it censored”.  Policy on fixing things that can be fixed without deletion is well covered by WP:ATD, and for good reason. Come back to mfd only after the fix is disputed. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete . Masum Reza 📞 17:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This does not fall under the purview of WP:RESTRICT. Why would you want to make it a subpage? Primefac (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. You are right. This page doesn't have some details listed here WMF Office bans. I was thinking the same as . But now I understand. Masum Reza 📞 18:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep since this kind of WMF action is now a thing, and apparently a thing which is beyond question, we should be able to keep public records on this Wikipedia for all to see. There appears to be no substance at  all in the opposition notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue here is why this is a problem when we have the block logs of WMFOffice and WMFLegal?  Promethean  (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The situation is still fluid, we should keep people banned by the WMF on file but clearly separated from the people banned by the Wiki-community and Arbcom. Count Iblis (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is one of the things that shouldn't *have to* exist, but given the situation, it should exist so that it's easier to keep track of what they're doing and what has been done in the past. It's an easy way for everyone to see the BS they've done (since I have a feeling this won't be a one-time event). Frood 22:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep While I don't personally agree with their addition of Fram to the list (nor do I agree with their ban in the first place, but that's another discussion by itself), I think restrictions placed by the Office are fine to be placed here. If it's empty, that should generally be more of a good thing than a bad thing. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It will never be empty because there are indefinitely WMF-blocked users. However, Fram's ban is not a "restriction" that should be listed at WP:RESTRICT, it's a temporary ban from editing. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, "I don't personally agree with their addition of Fram to the list (nor do I agree with their ban in the first place, but that's another discussion by itself),". By restrictions I mean editing restrictions, not site bans (temporary or permanent). EggRoll97 (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the point of this nomination - this isn't an editing restriction, so we shouldn't have it as a subpage of WP:Editing restrictions. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge to Office actions (and Office actions should also be kept). SilkTork (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep (rename optional) per Jehochman. I'm also going to add a thought here. Times change.  When I was a young man the "Internet" wasn't even a thing yet - but as it came into being I accepted it, and even became active in it.  Kids today are born with the Internet in existence; as well as what should be common sense in how to behave on it. If you don't want everyone to know about a thing, and/or you don't want to have something thrown in your face many years from now - Don't put it on the Internet Children in their parents basement should be held accountable for their actions.  Even if they are not held accountable, even if they have some sort of "ownership" over a web-page or site; then, their actions and accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan documentation should made available.  Pardon the cliche, but to paraphrase George Santayana:  Those who fail to learn from their mistakes, are condemned to repeat them.  If  we can document the mistakes of the past few weeks, hopefully they won't be repeated. (I'm not convinced of that - but it's worth a shot) — Ched :  ?    —  16:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep (rename optional) per Jehochman, Newyorkbrad, Ched, et alia. --GRuban (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.