Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Office actions/Log

 __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 and mark as historical. BD2412 T 05:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Office actions/Log

 * – (View MfD)

Given that the only entry on this page has been overturned, that the WMF has committed not to issue any more project-specific bans, and that there is a complete log of office actions maintained on meta, this page no longer serves any use. – bradv  🍁  17:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep.
 * This is to revisit Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by WMF Office?
 * This is highly significant Wikipedia history. Do not delete history.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I recognize SmokeyJoe's concern that is this a revisit of the previous MfD, but consider the following: Since that MfD, Fram's ban was vacated by ArbCom and thus the page is empty. Because, as bradv notes, WMF has "committed not to issue any more project-specific bans", I don't think this page has a future purpose to exist; any future entry would be entirely redundant to existing Meta logs. I disagree it is "highly significant Wikipedia history", as everything and more that could be found on this page, can be found at WP:FRAM; this page contains no new or unique information not found there. – Erakura (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "WMF has "committed not to..." is great, but worthless if people selectively delete the records. Logs can be archived, not deleted.  The fact that the log contains one tumultuous entry does not mean that this log is not important.  I disagree with User:Primefac's blanking of the old entry.  Why are Bureaucrats and Arbs trying to hide the history?  Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram sort of hides the history by burial in excruciating detail.  This log is the simple log of the simple fact of office action, and should be preserved for when it happens again.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think some clarification is in order -- Primefac didn't remove the log entry unprompted in attempt to 'hide the history'; he likely saw my comment on Xeno's talk page. As for myself, I have no previous interaction regarding the Fram situation, but I am familiar with it. – Erakura (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So, WMF Global Ban Policy/List shows a moderate list of WMF banned people, including some familiar names I didn't know were banned. I see I have to google offsite to find gossip on the reasons.  Is the difference between that list, and this list, that this one contains only en.wiki WMF bans that were done without consulting the en.wiki ArbCom?  Or is a problem with this list that it is incomplete?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did it for the reasons you've given; the page (much like those at WP:RESTRICT) are meant to list active sanctions, which Fram is not currently under. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I understand SmokeyJoe's point (I even have this cool userbox about it), but I don't see what value this page serves as either a practical administrative tool or as a historical artifact. As an administrative tool, we have a more complete list of office actions on meta, making this largely redundant, and as for future use we may want to consider WP:DENY before deciding to maintain such a list. As for its value as a historical artifact, it was not created by a WMF employee, so it's not part of any official history of the Fram debacle, and it never contained any information other than a listing for Fram. It was part of that saga, but a very minor part and whose value is more in the previous MFD discussion than in the page itself; the history will be more easily remembered by the arbitration case, or the incredibly long discussion at WP:FRAM linked from the WP:CENT archive, or the two phase consultation on meta that ended with a WMF employee stating "we will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans". It's a minor artifact and a small part of larger historical period, but given how little use it does or will serve us, on balance, I'd lean delete. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per . The history preservation is important here, as a record of past log actions, and to who helped to develop this page. I'd support a weak redirect to a suitable target or to userify-ing or draft-ifying this page. I see no reason for deletion, though. Doug Mehus T · C  18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The argument of User:SmokeyJoe has merit (which is more than the ban of Fram did). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep persuaded by SmokeyJoe, and the absolute necessity just isn't there. But I don't really see Primefac as actually trying to hide the history either. ——  SN  54129  16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't really look into that part of the argument about Primefac's reasons for blanking the page. Primefac is a fair and neutral bureaucrat with the best of intentions, which is what we would want in our bureaucrats (if admins are often symbolized as janitors with mops and buckets, are bureaucrats the janitorial supervisors?). I have no issue with blanking the page, or at least putting a notice atop the page that this page will remain a blank wikitable template due to WMF's stated plans not to employ the office actions without consensus. Doug Mehus T · C  17:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep as historical. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Mark Historical for transparency and add a link to the announcement(s) or discussion(s) where it was determined that these type of actions are not going to be used in the future. There's no need to hide this page.  Additionally, there is always a chance that office actions could be resurrected in the future and the page might be reactivated. Visibility is good. Jehochman Talk 12:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark as historical. While I agree that most of this is covered elsewhere, I don't see how deleting it improves anything. Don't delete historical content just because you don't see a use in the present. —Kusma (t·c) 13:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)