Wikipedia talk:Office actions/Archive two

Um... what?
I stumbled accross this page but haven't found it one bit useful. I stilol don't know: All this page really says is: office actions are really important, invented by Jimbo, and shouldn't be undone, OR ELSE. Am i missing something or could this policy be better written? (Honestly, this sounds like some piece of policy that I should be ready to cite (like AGF is), but I simply don't get what it is... help?... anyone?) MichaelBillington 11:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What on earth an "office action" is
 * 2) Why it is so important
 * 3) Why you arent allowed to revert it (by penalty of blocking?!)
 * Sorry for the confusion. Some of the vagueness is deliberate because it is a little bit of a catch-all category.  The WP:OFFICE police is essentially saying that Jimbo and Danny are sometimes in possession of privileged information and they may have to act on that information without fully revealing the information to the wider community.  This might include areas where we have a legal obligation to act in a certain way, where that obligation will not be changed by community debate.  An "office action" would typically be something like their removing a potentially slanderous statement or a copyrighted image from an article and/or protecting that article against re-addition of such information.  This is especially true in the case where a complaint has been received and the complaint seems to at least superficially have merit.  A mechanism such as WP:OFFICE is needed to allow us to quickly and efficiently respond to matters of great importance, including issues where there could be potential legal ramifications for the foundation.  Johntex\talk 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, one more note, this talk page is uinder a red linked category. MichaelBillington 12:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So someone in the office, unaccountable to anyone else, can delete, block or edit anything? And this makes sense in a user driven community how?Lord Chess 16:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. Cynical 16:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Because, whilst the Wikimedia projects - such as this en:Wikipedia - are user-driven, they exist under a legal status that make the Wikimedia Foundation liable, under certain circumstances, for what appears on them. An Office Action is a method of dealing with that legality issue in an effective and timely manner in order that the well-being of the projects may be ensured. I'd also refer you to the discussions above expanding on this. --AlisonW 23:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly the problem with this sort of action. There is no oversight to see that it isn't abused, and there is at least some circumstantial evidence that perhaps it is abused from time to time.  The number of actual legal actions that would normally warrant such action I would argue should be astonishly few... certainly not to the extent that it is done based on log reviews.  Many of these could have been dealt with by the community at large, such as copyright violations and such, but again I'm not privy to all the inside legal BS that is going on as well.
 * My largest problem with this policy is that Wikipedia is certifiably the wrong place for such a policy. This is a Wikimedia policy, not a Wikipedia policy.  Particularly when it is invoked for other projects (such as ones where I'm an administrator).  I wasn't even informed that such a policy even existed until after it was already invoked when I was reviewing the deletion log of another Wikimedia project.
 * I would hope that such information is clearly logged (somewhere private) that clearly explains these actions, subject to review by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. Unfortuately I don't think this is the case.  Furthermore, by initiating these actions and invoking such irrevokable policies, they (IMHO Danny and Jimbo) are subjecting the Foundation to far more liability than if they simply provided legal isolation between the WMF and project deletion and user block policies.  But the preceedent has already been established and it is too late to back off now.  --Robert Horning 03:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They own the servers. You can download the database dump. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And you have just elicited fighting words here by even mentioning this. I can go on, but this is a most fallacious statement that can be refuted on multiple levels.  This doesn't deserve a reply beyond noting that you havn't replied to the fact that this is Wikimedia-wide policy, but was never announced as such and presuming that en.wikipedia is the only project being run by the Wikimedia Foundation.  That was my complaint.  --Robert Horning 07:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

merge request
Someone requested that Courtesy blanking be merged here. This OFFICE stuff is very, very confusing to me still, and I do believe it needs to become clearer, and for OFFICE actions to be explicitly marked as such (in contrast to how Jimbo currently does CBs, just writing the phrase "courtesy blanking" with no further explaination -- which oftens results in a revert by someone who sees it as random vandalism.) Sdedeo (tips) 23:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * These pages should NOT be merged, they are very diferant. —  xaosflux  Talk  00:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Courtesy blanking can be done by anyone in response to a simple request on the wiki; this is quite different from office actions. (Liberatore, 2006). 05:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the template. Sdedeo (tips) 06:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To reduce future ambiguity
In the wake of the Fleshlight Affair, I'm thinking to make a small change to this policy to perhaps reduce some of the confusion and consternation that surrounds office actions. The bit that says:


 * If you are unsure whether an action by User:Dannyisme or User:Danny is performed under this policy, contact him privately to confirm.

leaves editors in paranoid doubt about User:Danny's edits, even though that account is used as Danny's "regular" editing account and he uses it to do his own personal edits that should be just as contradictable as any other regular joe's edits. So I'm going to change it to


 * ''Edits by User:Danny are Danny's own personal edits and do not bear the special weight of Office Action."

This way it shifts the onus of using the right account to Danny and reduces the ambiguity for other editors who want to change things that Danny's touched in his ordinary editor role. I think this is the least that can be done and unless there are serious objections I'll make the change in a day or two. Ideally, I'd also like to propose that Danny change his "office account" name to something a lot more clearly distinguished from his regular editing identity; perhaps User:Office Action or something similar. That has the added benefit of future-proofing, if at some point Wikipedia gets a second office editor he or she can use the same account. Bryan 18:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You should wait on this for a response from Danny. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reverted this change. You are probably unaware of this, but every person in a position to authoratatively respond to your suggestion is at a retreat working on delveloping a strategic plan for the organization.  Please be patient about this and wait until you do get a response. -- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  01:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. As long as I'm aware that the issue hasn't disappeared without a ripple I'm in no hurry. Bryan 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When's the retreat over, BTW? Bryan 05:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that my main problem with this policy has been resolved by the recent edits. Here's hoping it sticks. Bryan 01:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Commons
I have just learned that at Commons, WP:OFFICE will be invoked by ordinary admins when requested by the Wikimedia office via IRC. Lets explain that on the page. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, as long as we make falsely claiming Office-request a blockable offence. Cynical 10:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is especially relevant or important. Also, Brad Patrick did post a message about it on the Commons noticeboard, it wasn't done secretively. —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Faking an office action is kind of a no-brainer for a sysop. That would probably account to immediate desysopping if anything, let alone a block. Cowman109 Talk 06:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that I'm not a sysop
because i think that this policy is the first nail in the coffin of the current wikipedia philosophy, to be completely honest. i contribute on wikipedia, and will continue to contribute on wikipedia; but i feel that this policy is, although not a problem in itself, indicative of a problem regarding the scalability of the wikipedia philosophy on a deeper level, to be frank. --Kaini 06:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe this policy is the best example of Ignore all rules: If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. If I can accept that policy, I can accept this one. -- ReyBrujo 04:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is its own community with its own rules, chaotically assembled and incompletely understood as actually applied by most of en:Wikipedia's 3 million editors. Nevertheless, considerable experience and wisdom concerning the successful development of an encyclopedia is embedded in this framework of policies, guideline, norms. To an outsider, it often seems downright bizarre and you see this reflected outside media coverage of Wikipedia's internal culture.


 * OFFICE, as I see it, is about the interface between this community and its internal ways of doing things, and the outside world with its norms, expectations and, especially, laws. Wkipedia does not exist in a vacuum but rather in the world at large.


 * Having been caught up in one OFFICE issue, I was really bothered by what happened. On broader reflection, however, I understand the need for OFFICE if Wikipedia is to survive in the "real world" of lawyers, courts, irate people, etc. I'm amazed the English version of Wikipedia has ≥1.5 million articles with only 7 articles presently on the OFFICE list (plus a commons image) ... and it's hosted in the ever-litigious United States. The two e-mails listed at the top of this page from Danny are worth reading:
 * &#91;WikiEN-l&#93; I am Danny
 * &#91;WikiEN-l&#93; Phone calls
 * I'm also surpised at how lightly staffed the Foundation office is to deal with all the outside communications.


 * Those monastic religious orders that have been cloistered from society have always had one or two monks or nuns designated to deal with the outside world -- suppliers, tax collectors, etc Their service gave the other monastics freedom to pursue their religious vocations without distraction. As I see it, Danny & Co. are filling a similar role in the Office.


 * I think Wikipedia will always need something like OFFICE; the appropriate question is more about whether it's being abused. With so few articles, I think the answer is "no", even though if I looked at each of the articles, I would often disagree with the assessment that led to them getting OFFICE'd. I imagine in most cases, Danny or Jimmy felt the same way, yet did what the Foundation's counsel advised them to do. For that matter, even the Foundation's lawyers might even have felt the same way, yet had good tactical reasons for requesting an OFFICE action. --A. B. (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree that the OFFICE policy is needed, and there are legitimate uses for such actions. That certainly huge numbers of invokations are not occuring is a credit to Jimbo and Danny Wool, but it still concerns me that the universality of this policy is not stated, or why all the discussion is here on Wikipedia instead of Foundation-l or Meta.  I was introduced to this policy when some content was deleted on Wikibooks with this policy being invoked as the justification.  Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, has come forward to explain this in a context that goes beyond en.wikipedia.  And this is the one and only situation where I know a policy on one Wikimedia project holds official enforced practice on other projects.  Furthermore, the idea that such actions can't be appealed or reviewed by a 3rd party seems so draconian.  --Robert Horning 18:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Reverting" edit
It's said that revering a WP:OFFICE edit is grounds for "serious punishment" possibly including legal action. Does this mean that a full rewrite of an "officed" page (one that has been the subject of a WP:OFFICE edit) that obliterates all traces of the original page, or a deletion of one, is likely an "actionable offense" regardless of the reasons/content/etc.? Just curious. 170.215.83.4 09:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would interpret this as "don't get into an edit war with Jimbo". (BTW, I have done that, and it isn't pretty.)  By proxy, Danny and others appointed by the WMF board certainly have a little clout that is of a similar nature and steward-level acess to Wikimedia projects.  What is missing here is a community concensus that this is the way such actions should be dealt with, and perhaps an assurance that such reversions and edits (including user blocks and other admin-only actions) would be done as a last resort and done explictly to provide legal protection for the WMF.  That doesn't appear to be the case in every situation and the review process is clearly lacking to double check if such edits were necessarily warrented.  --Robert Horning 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:OFFICE actions generally involve the use of administrative tools. I do not think there has been any mere WP:OFFICE "edit" of an article that was not also accompanied by protecting the article. The statement by Jimbo is directed at administrators, who are technically able to edit articles under OFFICE protection, or to remove protection. It would not be feasible to ensure that some text in an article remains the same or is not re-added (Without protection, for example, anyone at all might come along and remove, change, or re-add the text without any knowledge). Any OFFICE action (which are often legal matters) that involves an edit would be accompanied by protection to preserve that edit (until the matter is otherwise resolved). Any edit that is related to a plain WP:BLP problem or something else which it would not be necessary to firmly preserve would not be an OFFICE action. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As is stated in the introduction, " When a page is modified under this policy, the template "" will be placed prominently on the page and the page will be protected. " —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The bit about "legal reasons" means that if this policy is invoked, it may be because there are legal problems with the articel (EG. He's recieved a formal complaint of copyright infringement). Obviously, if you re-add the copyrighted stuff he's removed, knowing that, you might put yourself at risk. However, as I tried to mention when I rewrote this, the warnings of being "treated harshly" mostly apply to administrators, who have all the technical power he does (Except for the fact that he can reduce user rights levels, while they can't). Hence, they could easily get into a "wheel war" with him.


 * Basically, Office'd stuff will be very obvious and hard to screw up: Some level of protection, a protection template that says "Office!" and a lot more people then normal watching it. 68.39.174.238 21:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Does this mean, then, that such a complete rewrite that obliterates all trace of the original offending article would still be a violation of WP:OFFICE, though? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.38.35.238 (talk • contribs).


 * Nonono, that's perfectly legit (Assuming the rewrite doesn't fall into the same problems the original articel did). "Office edits" are almost ALWAYS removals of some infamous libel, or blatant and unjustifyable copyright infringement. Subsequent edits (Once the articel is unprotected) that don't bring these things page are legit. It's not as though this is like the clause in the Windows licence that says "[...] HAS CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGED US TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:", where the office will force a specific statement to remain forever in the articel.


 * I hope that answers it, however, if not, what exactly situation is coming to mind? 68.39.174.238 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes that answers it and answers it exactly. I just don't see that from the page... 74.38.35.171 21:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tried to rewrite it so that your point is more easily seen when reading it. 68.39.174.238 16:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems like an open excuse to shove things under the table
Maybe there should be some guidelines as when this can be used rather than "in emergencies". What is an emergency? So anybody can just try to sue wikipedia, and shut down everything? Just H 01:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is an emergency when it is one; it is part of the job of the people in the office to determine when it is an emergency and when it isn't. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of Wikipedia is under community control and we can create guidelines as we wish for most anything. But OFFICE is about what is not under community control and instead has been determined by staff (under the control of the foundation's board) to require a temporary rethinking and rewriting due to some specific legal issue whose full and open discussion is not legally speaking a good idea (the law is like that). It is a difficult thing to get right and the kinks are still being worked out. WAS 4.250 09:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We DO have a lawyer (BP) who is trained to evaluate legal threats and such that come to the office. If he thinks someone has a serious point, legal-threat-warranting or not, he can invoke this both to show legal and personal good-faith and to get the articel moving in the right direction. If someone's just blowing off nonsense, he can basically tell them "Sorry" (He's indicated at least once that they do get spurious calls and don't invoke this over them). Basically, very few people who are professionally competent and/or directly under the Foundation can invoke this. It's not like WP:IAR or other rules which anyone can operate under. 68.39.174.238 21:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we archive this?
Just reading through the page from top to bottom feels like going down a mineshaft. So much has changed that past sections are likely to give a very out of date feel... 68.39.174.238 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Crosstar.png
I see this image must not be uploaded under this or any other name.

But how can editors or administrators prevent it, if there's no way to know what it looks like because it's been removed?

if in future images and media are removed under this policy, can some description or context, or a low-resolution outline be uploaded, so that people have some idea what it is that shouldn't exist? Thanks. FT2 (Talk 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Admins can find out what it looks like. Prodego  talk  00:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * errrr, the majority of people's problems with OFFICE seem to be concerned with that fact in particular --Kaini 04:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The other problem is, what if it's uploaded under some wild name noone's ever going to hit by accident? What if that was "Image:DCN_75649.PNG" ? How would someone know not to upload it untill they had and been told off for it? 68.39.174.238 09:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If the name is anything to go by, this Image Google should give a good idea what it is. 68.39.174.238 09:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is it. It the group's own website. --Bobby D. DS. 08:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please confirm...
... that works for the Wikimedia Foundation? See [diff [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User was blocked indef for impersonation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A question about the page name...
Does anyone support moving this page to Office actions (Δ = lowercase "A")? I see no reason to keep it uppercased, all other pages like this are written in standard style (Initial capital only), and most links to this page are via shortcuts (Or so it seems). 68.39.174.238 07:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mindy Kaling
The Mindy Kaling has had the office tag since September 30 by user:Dannyisme, yet if doesn't show up in Category:Office protected. Does someone have any idea why this is protected? --rogerd 21:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, interesting. The article is in that category, but the article doesn't show up in the it. Since the protection was made quite a while ago, I asked Danny if the protection is still needed. --Conti|&#9993; 21:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Western University
Can the editor who added this (under scrutiny tag) please explain it?: "This page is currently under the scrutiny of the Wikimedia Foundation Office and is protected. If you are able to edit this page, please discuss all changes and additions on the talk page first. Do not remove protection from this article unless you are authorized by the Wikimedia Foundation to do so." Badagnani 01:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Is the editor who added the tag even reading this talk page? The failure to even have the courtesy to respond here is most disheartening. Badagnani 18:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Hi Badagnani, I didn't add that tag. However, I think that above in this talk page is some discussion that might explain it Talk:Pacific_Western_University#Why_I_reverted_to_12.2F28.2F2006_WP:OFFICE_version. Also, here's some info on my talk page User_talk:Bill_Huffman#Pacific_Western_University. Regards, Bill Huffman 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, that just doesn't cut it. It is disrespectful and wrong to the community for the individual who added the tag to go on to other things and ignore their duty to explain what is going on here! Let's bring this to a logical conclusion. The progress of knowledge must march on. Let's have a response, please. Badagnani 05:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC) It's now a week later and nary a word of explanation! Can the editor who added this please explain it?: "This page is currently under the scrutiny of the Wikimedia Foundation Office and is protected. If you are able to edit this page, please discuss all changes and additions on the talk page first. Do not remove protection from this article unless you are authorized by the Wikimedia Foundation to do so." This lack of response is disrespectful and unprofessional to say the least! Badagnani 05:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Got to agree, so I'm copying this to the WP office talk page. Hopefully something will happen... Famousdog 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ask the regular editors to that page, OR more usefullly, ask the person who added it directly. You're NOT getting an answer here. 68.39.174.238 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

n:Template:Office
Hello, Wikipedians. I've added an Office Action template to the English Wikinews. Does this policy apply interlingually, and inter-projectly? --Thunderhead – talk 04:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. It is rather odd it is here, since it does apply inter-project, so it should really be on meta... Prodego  talk  05:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Brad Patrick resigned
Brad Patrick has just announced his resignation and I've removed his name from the page. His resignation is effective march 31 so I might have jumped the gun a bit too soon. Feel free to revert if anyone thinks I was wrong. Jayden54 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is everyone resigning? Oh yes, "The timing is just unfortunate." Still... Prodego  talk  21:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Major revisions to who is authorized
These are major revisions as to who is authorized to take these actions, removing one person and adding numerous others. What is the reason for this and where is the preceding discussion? —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well Danny resigned, there are more staff now and certain de-facto stuff is now becomeing de-jure. Discussion likely took place at board level either formaly or informaly. Geni 17:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alkivar is not on the Board or associated with the Board, and there is no indication anywhere that this is a Board decision. This is a substantial change, removing User:Jimbo Wales specifically (though he is currently on the Board), and adding "any" member of the Foundation office, which was never necessary before and includes any future interns or coffee boys. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is unlikely to have been a formal board ruleing if that is what you are after. The any member thing was not required in the past because it was limited to Danny, Brad and the biron. Brad tended to be hands off and biron had other concerns.Geni 21:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no indication of involvement by anyone associated with the Board, or even anyone associated with any Wikimedia Committee, local foundations, enwiki Arbitration Committee, or whatever position of higher authority, etc. You brought the Board up because that would be a situation where someone external and in authority made a binding decision, but that is not the case here. So, we are left with the original question: Why should User:Jimbo Wales be removed and is the wording otherwise appropriate? In addition, given the nature of WP:OFFICE should substantial changes like this be made when there is no higher approval? —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw this in my watchlist, and had a reaction similar to Centrx. Wikipedia requires reliable sources when people contribute to articles.  I think changes to who can invoke WP:OFFICE really should have some kind of reference or note or something.  A link to a mailing list posting, the date of a board meeting, even an unverified Jimbo quote, but something.  I could go and add “... or me”, and I'm sure that would be rejected as nonsense.  The recent edit does not seem like nonsense, but it is just as unsourced.  That's not good.  •  Note that I'm not accusing Alkivar or Thebainer of doing anything subversive.  They perhaps know something we don't, and just didn't think to pass that knowledge on.  Perhaps they both just made what they thought were reasonable updates given the recent turnover in personnel.  Lots of possible explanations.  Speculation isn't going to help.  I'd like to hear from them.  •  Cheers! —DragonHawk (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussions were made on IRC (since Danny left the foundation) that since legal councel, board, and foundation staff have been, and always have been capable of making office actions this should be outright specified. I initially brought it up inquiring whether or not Bastique (who answers the office phone now) should be named... Dave Gerard and others brought up that we shouldnt name individuals but instead point them to the foundation server.

The current wording of "Office actions may be authorized by any of the members of the Foundation's Board of Trustees, or by the Foundation's legal counsel, and may be performed by any member of the Foundation's office. The ability to authorize actions may also be delegated as necessary." seems to be the closest to Jimbo's intitial intent. This is somewhat moot as the people so named (board, legal team, paid devs) can make the changes and theres really nothing anyone can do about it should they so choose. I just wanted it more clearly specified now that Danny has left the office who actually was authorized. Hope that clears up some of this tempest brewing. ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 00:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion on IRC has the weight of helium. The only one's who should make changes are individuals who actually are authorized to act on behalf of the board, which is limited to the board itself.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 00:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So changing it to say "only members of the board" has to be made by members of the board?!?!?!?! seems to be a bit circular logic here. Particularly since you pretty much verified the change is accurate.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 00:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No I am saying that only members of the board can say whether or not members of the board are indeed actively engaging in OFFICE actions. Until they say they are, nothing is for sure.  Only the board should speak for the board.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 00:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So, who can we ask if we need any clarfication regarding office actions, or if we have other questions? This talk page has been pretty much ignored in that regard, even while Danny was still active. --Conti|✉ 00:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bring it to the board, legal counsel, or current staff... i'd suggest a first stop of User:Bastique as he's probably the easiest to get a hold of.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try that. --Conti|✉ 00:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's word. I actually did ask about my change. Prodego  talk  00:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Source of the policy
Since there seems to be a little confusion with the recent clarification, I thought I'd explain how the office actions policy came into being to allow people to understand its contents.

The policy started as essentially a way for urgent actions that came to the attention of the Foundation to be carried out by someone in the Foundation office when for whatever reason, the authorising person wasn't in a position to do it themselves. In this way, the actions are merely proxied through whichever of the office people happens to be available to do it. In practice, this meant that Jimbo would authorise Danny to take these actions - because at that time, Danny was the only person in the office.

Further communications from Jimbo fleshing out the policy made it clear that this could be used by whoever was in the office, and that the authority comes from the Foundation, the people who receive the communications that prompt office actions. Communications also established that the Foundation's legal counsel would also authorise actions from time to time, and that other people could be authorised to take actions aswell.

The recent edits have just clarified the way this works: that the Foundation authorises actions, that are then actually performed by someone in the office. --bainer (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I should add that Prodego was not wrong in making the previous clarification following this discussion, because Danny was then the only one who had in fact been authorised (as opposed to being capable of being authorised). --bainer (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thebainer: thanks for your comments on this. However, I'm not sure I understand this part: "The policy started as essentially a way for urgent actions that came to the attention of the Foundation to be carried out by someone in the Foundation office when for whatever reason, the authorising person wasn't in a position to do it themselves." What sort of reason might this be? Don't all the members of the Board have their own Wikipedia accounts with which they can make any necessary edits? Granted, there may be occasions when such a person is away from an internet connection and thus cannot edit, although, in such a situation, there would also be obstacles to knowing what changes need to be made. Please clarify this point, thebainer.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thebainer's summary is misleading. Office actions were done on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel and then executed by someone familiar with the Wikipedia community and processes. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That, then, would seem to imply that, if the authoriser is someone who is already an experienced editor familiar with community processes, then there is no need for someone else to execute the office action. Having two people involved adds an additional bit of confusion.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The questions that need to be answered
It seems to me that there are two questions we need to find answers for:

1) Who has the authority to decide when and by whom office actions may be performed?

2) What has that person or persons, in public and as an official statement, said about this matter?

Until these questions are answered, we should change this page to say that we don't know who can perform office actions.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Rampant speculation
This is basically original research on my part, so I'll put it here in it's own little section, so people can easily ignore it. :) Anyway:

From the beginning, it has seemed to me (as an "outsider") that "Office Actions" are basically the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) stepping in and saying, "The WMF owns and operates the servers that host Wikipedia. As such, the WMF has ultimate legal authority over the site.  This action is authorized and has ultimate authority because it came from the WMF office." Under US law, that is pretty much how it works — it is their site, not ours. (They don't own the content, of course, but they own en.wikipedia.org and the servers behind it.)

Of course, the idea is that this authority only gets invoked in circumstances that require an immediate action, where regular channels are not fast enough. That would be the prototypical irate person on the phone, making a stink and perhaps threatening legal action. Presumably, if the WMF betrays our trust, we can all vote with our feet and go elsewhere. But that's really irrelevant to my point: As the owner-operators, the WMF can do whatever they want, and that's an "Office Action".

Who has this power? That is public knowledge. See Board of Trustees.

What we really need to know is: Which Wikipedia user accounts can legitimately claim to be acting on behalf of the WMF office? In other words, what accounts can legitimately claim WP:OFFICE authority? If we don't know this, when someone claims "Office Action", we'll all be running around asking "Is this person for real?" That's a Bad Thing, given the nature of WP:OFFICE (which is likely to be used mostly in times of stress and confusion).

Ideally, Mr. Wales will step forward and give us a short list of accounts so authorized, who are also empowered to delegate said authority. Him, only because he's the closest thing to root Wikipedia has, and that would thus eliminate all question. :) After that, it would be ideal if departing WP:OFFICE accounts designated any successors, to avoid this kind confusion in the future.

—DragonHawk (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I agree with your answer to the first question: "Who has this power? That is public knowledge.  See Board of Trustees." So far, we're on the same page. When you say, "What we really need to know is: Which Wikipedia user accounts can legitimately claim to be acting on behalf of the WMF office?", I think that basically restates my second question. I wish we knew the answer. However, I'm confused by the part where you say, "Ideally, Mr. Wales will step forward and give us a short list of accounts so authorized, who are also empowered to delegate said authority.  Him, only because he's the closest thing to root Wikipedia has". Mr. Wales != the Board of Trustees, and the latter is who we have agreed has the power to make this decision. Jimbo is something of a superuser on the English Wikipedia, but this seems like something which must be handled by Wikimedia overall; moreover, Jimbo is superuser only by consensus, I don't think that office actions have anything to do with consensus. They are, as you say, a matter of the Foundation stepping in and saying, "we own this and find it necessary to set some limits."&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 06:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yah, "What we really need to know" is more-or-less restating your second question. • The reason I called on Jimbo Wales by name is that he's the most recognized authority figure on Wikipedia. "Everyone" already knows his identity and account.  He's also a Member of the WMF Board, which puts him in a position to speak for the Board.  So I saw him as the ideal person to do that.  But you're right, Jimbo != The_Board.  Any WMF Board Member's directive would be sufficient to establish some kind of formal chain of authority. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 06:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The salient disagreement here is that I don’t understand how one member of the board of trustees can speak for the entire board. That would mean we could have seven people independently making decisions on behalf of the board. What if one of them says something that the other six all disagree with?&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 15:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that, lacking by-laws to the contrary, any member of a board is empowered to speak for the board. The board itself (the abstract construct) of course does not have a voice, so it will always be an individual speaking for the board.  •  Disagreement between board members, or a "rogue member", would be handled according to the by-laws of the organization.  •  If I can be so bold as to speak for you, what you're really looking for here is a formal motion, voted upon by the WMF Board, specifying who is authorized to invoke WP:OFFICE on their behalf.  That is, a formal delegation of authority.  I'd like to see that, too.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with the idea that one member of the board can speak informally on behalf of the board as a whole. However, it seems to me that if the board wants to do something that binds the people using its servers, it needs to be a formal motion voted on by a majority of the board. Failing that, I don't really see how OFFICE can be considered to be in effect.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 17:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Even when Danny was in control, some other (regular) admins made office actions. I did once (minor, protecting a redirect) and User:VampWillow office protected two "/NewStuff" pages. The foundation can delegate (in those cases Danny did), and so a strict list may not be a good idea, if it won't be followed. Prodego  talk  03:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that a strict list is no good if it won't be followed. And certainly, the WMF can delegate their authority however they wish.  But it seems to me there really should be a well-defined list of who can claim WP:OFFICE authority.  The office and reset templates have really ominous warnings about their application and removal.  How can anyone know if someone is abusing power or even just trolling?  If only the authorized know who is authorized... well, that just seems wrong to me.  :)  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that we should simply follow common sense here. I hope we are past the "desysop if you touch secret office protected page" days, and instead people will be more open to mistakes and authority. That is ask before you undo anything marked WP:OFFICE (unless it is a non admin, though that can backfire) and don't desysop, instead warn. Hopefully faking WP:OFFICE is something no sysop would do. And if they do, we have stewards to rebuke them in technical ways. Prodego  talk  03:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, while I obviously don't think that's the best approach, I'm willing to bow out of the discussion at this point. With luck, my fears will be proven completely unfounded.  If not, I suppose we can always burn that bridge when we come to it.  :)  Thanks for listening.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, before we can decide who has the power of OFFICE, we need to define what OFFICE is. Prodego, when you and VampWillow “office protected” certain pages, what made those protections office actions? What is the difference between an office action which is “faked” and one which isn’t? Until we clarify this, I think that applying common sense to the subject will be of little avail.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 15:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very late response but: they weren't faked because Danny gave us permission to make them. We just noted them as office actions, and that was that. Prodego  talk  02:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia or Wikipedia?
This policy is by no means "Wikimedia-wide" as was advertised by the large notice on top. This policy is only in effect on the English Wikipedia, and is therefore, only Wikipedia policy. The only way for this to become Wikimedia-wide policy is for it be passed by the Board of Trustees, in which case, the main policy page would be on Meta. This page also needs a heavy update to even be considered up to date. Cbrown1023 talk 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you make this claim? The Foundation already has the power and legal right to do this. This page just documents that fact, describes how it works and the purpose, and lists pages under the Office aegis. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Cbrown1023, as the thread above mentions, one view is that source of the authority for the current policy is ultimately the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. If this is not, in fact, the source of its authority, I don't know what is. You do make a good point, though, and I'm not sure why this policy page is on enwiki rather than on meta.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As you can see, Anthere has endorsed this version. I also have a very good reason why it is not on meta, it is not implemented project-wide and has not been approved as Wikimedia policy.  Only a (future) executive director or the Board of Trustees can really do that. Cbrown1023 talk 23:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The previous version was "Wikimedia-wide official policy". You changed it to "Wikipedia-wide official policy". The revision after Anthere edited is "Wikimedia official policy". She may have erred, but that's not an endorsement of the change you made. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant the latter changes (i.e. the current version), but you are right in that case. <b style="color:green;">Cbrown1023</b> <b style="color:#002bb8; font-size:smaller;">talk</b> 23:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the biggest problem with WP:OFFICE is that there is almost no reliable information about the authority and process behind its invocation. We know what its effect is intended to be — forestall social/political damage from an article with "issues", and a call for help with improving the article.  But we don't know how it gets invoked, or who is authorized to invoke it.  That makes a lot of people very uneasy.  •  To the best of my knowledge, Cbrown1023 is no more empowered to declare it "only Wikipedia policy" than Centrx is empowered to declare it WMF-wide.  Both can speculate (as I do above), but none of us can say definitively. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are referring to my error of changing to Wikipedia instead of Wikimedia that Anthere later corrected when she reverted Centrx. <b style="color:green;">Cbrown1023</b> <b style="color:#002bb8; font-size:smaller;">talk</b> 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As a matter of practice, that is not the most important function of WP:OFFICE and is more within the realm of what is done for OTRS. WP:OFFICE is used for fulfilling the legal obligations of the Wikimedia Foundation, in response to prospective or actual legal issues. While this has not been its sole use, it is nevertheless a power which the Wikimedia Foundation does have across all projects, and which it is legally necessary for the Wikimedia Foundation to have across all projects. There is nothing indefinite about that. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Cbrown1023, the reason why this only appears on the English Wikipedia is purely an issue of scale. English Wikipedia is of the size that it's sometimes more than can be handled directly and so sometimes it's necessary to proxy actions through the office staff or other authorised people. The Foundation certainly can step in when necessary on other projects, it's just, for reasons of scale, not necessary to do it through the office sometimes. --bainer (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that all the above is just singular user's interpretation and opinions of this policy. I do not doubt that this can be used on all wikis (for the same reasons that Jimbo can block anyone he likes on all wikis), but I do doubt that it is official policy on all wikis. If it were official policy on all wikis it would need to be passed as such officially by a community of all wikis (e.g. the Board of Trustees, meta...) or someone acting in an official capacity (i.e. Executive Director). <b style="color:green;">Cbrown1023</b> <b style="color:#002bb8; font-size:smaller;">talk</b> 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:OFFICE is wikimedia-wide, I just replied to such a question above actually. I believe WP:OFFICE has been used on Commons already.  Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  20:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Argh, you not understanding me.... it is in use "wikimedia-wide", but is not "wikimedia-wide policy" this may seem like just a technicality, but it isn't. <b style="color:green;">Cbrown1023</b> <b style="color:#002bb8; font-size:smaller;">talk</b> 20:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are also wrong the above... the Commons image history, tells a different story: . <b style="color:green;">Cbrown1023</b> <b style="color:#002bb8; font-size:smaller;">talk</b> 21:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong, seems a little mean.... :) The page was changed by Bastique (who does most of the Office actions and is really the only user who should do them...) so you were right... but not anymore. :-P <b style="color:green;">Cbrown1023</b> <b style="color:#002bb8; font-size:smaller;">talk</b> 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, so you're saying that this particular policy only applies here, however, the foundation can do what is explained by the policy anywhere, correct? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  20:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did this all after concerns raised by Anthere, as I have said countless times. :-P It was extremely outdated and definitely needs a clarification by people who know what they are talking about and have the ability to enforce their decisions, not our opinionated guesses. <b style="color:green;">Cbrown1023</b> <b style="color:#002bb8; font-size:smaller;">talk</b> 21:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why are you doing it? —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am asking for a clarification... as I did with my post to the Foundation mailing list... <b style="color:green;">Cbrown1023</b> <b style="color:#002bb8; font-size:smaller;">talk</b> 22:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into this, Cbrown. As I said above, I don't understand how this can be official policy on any project if it has not been passed by the Board of Trustees.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Danny's response was a very good one... but if that is true, then I would like to see it uploaded to Meta as well and correctly labeled as Wikimedia-wide (instead of by an IP). So, either way, something positive will come out of this. <b style="color:green;">Cbrown1023</b> <b style="color:#002bb8; font-size:smaller;">talk</b> 23:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What we don't know
As I've mentioned above, it appears to me that we currently have no way of knowing who, if anyone, is authorised to carry out office actions. This being the case, I propose to edit the policy page to reflect this fact.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bastique is. --Kim Bruning 22:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your response lacks a bit in terms of lengthiness. How do we know that Bastique is?&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any basis why not? Is there any reason to think that an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation who was hired to deal with community issues and is acting in this capacity with the knowledge of the Board does not have authority to do this? Is there any reason to think that you are not just trolling or completely ignorant? —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Trolling? Completely ignorant? Is there any reason for me to think that you're not being blatantly uncivil? I have discussed this topic for a while above without provoking any particularly strong response from anyone. I must be one of the world's least successful trolls.


 * I most certainly do not consider "Do you have any basis why not?" to be at all a sufficient answer to this question. Per this thread, I'm not sure that there is any consensus yet on what the criteria would be to judge if someone is authorised to perform office actions, much less on who if anyone meets those criteria.


 * If a policeman shows up at your door, you're going to want to see a badge. If he hasn't got one, that doesn't prove that he's not really a policeman, but it does prove that he's not really doing his job right.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There's something called the "doctrine of implicit consent", where if action is taken with one's knowledge, one is given the opportunity to object, and one does not object, one is implictly giving consent to the action. It seems like Kim Bruning and Centrx are operating under that principle: The WMF Board knows their employees are acting this way, and are not objecting, so it is reasonable to conclude the WMF Board is okay with it. • Nat Krause, on the other hand, appears to be asking for something a little more explicit. I do not feel that is unreasonable, either. • It appears to me that this discussion could be more productive. Less confrontation and declaration, more seeking of mutual understanding, is needed. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, DragonHawk. I think you give a good summary of my and Centrx's opinions, and a reasonable guess as to what K-Bruning's might be. I'm sorry that I was getting a bit argumentative.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ?  Daniel Bryant  08:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've said above, I don't think it makes sense to expect one board member to speak for the entire board. What's more, in this case, Anthere didn't even state whether she was acting in an official capacity or as an individual editor.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is, of course, exactly what OFFICE is about - distinguishing official board-endorsed edits from those made by individual editors. --Maxamegalon2000 01:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, but implicitly then, it isn't necessary for the board to specify any one member who is 'authorised' to do so. If a board member uses an OFFICE template, we can presume they know what they're doing and they feel their decision is or will be board-endorsed. If they make a mistake or misuse the template, it's something for the board to deal with not us mere editors (or admins). For a simple mistake, the member is likely to revert him or herself quickly. If a member keeps misusing the template then they will likely be reprimanded or maybe sacked (or perhaps taken to the community to be sacked). I personally think any board comment is unnecessary in this matter. They key point here is board members are, we can expect smart people. They understand the difference between personal opinions and OFFICE actions and they will ensure they differentiate between the two. Nil Einne 21:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On this sort of sensitive question, I don't think it's a good idea to expect editors to simply assume that someone knows what they're doing and is doing the right thing. Why can't the board just make a statement and clear this up, rather than leaving it to editors to guess?&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is it that you don't find clear? People who are on the board or are employed by the foundation can perform an office action. There's no reason to have a policy that makes no sense whatsoever (ie, "it is currently unclear ...") just because the foundation hasn't published anything in flashing neon signs. --BigDT 03:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you getting at when you say, "the foundation hasn't published anything in flashing neon signs"? Has it published something subtler than that?


 * As I have said a few times, the thing that I don't find clear is what the grounds are on which an editor such as myself should accept that it is true that Person X or Person Y has the authority to perform office actions.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of Board of Trustees and Current staff? The grounds are that the Wikimedia Foundation owns the servers; the Board of Trustees is essentially the Wikimedia Foundation and its employees execute the will of Wikimedia Foundation. What exactly is so difficult to understand here, and what exactly is the problem you are trying to solve? —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am aware of those things, yes. What's more, I agree in principle that the Board of Trustees has the power to authorise office actions. It would be acceptable to edit the page to say that it is unclear who performs office actions other than the Board, but I didn't initially think this would be worthwhile, since the Board has never authorised office actions in the past and has shown, to my knowledge, no interest in getting involved in the future.


 * I do not agree that everything an employee might do constitutes the will of the will of the Wikimedia Foundation. Therefore, they cannot empower themselves to authorise office actions.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If an employee, board member, or Jimbo takes an action and calls it an action, reverting that is just an all around bad idea. I don't know what is unclear about it.  We don't have to answer every single "what if" question for this policy.  If, in the case you seem to be suggesting, someone who works for the foundation were to declare some questionable action to be an office action, it's still a bad idea for you or I to revert it - let another employee, board member, or Jimbo handle the situation.  We don't need to have every single what if enumerated. -- Big ΔT  22:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is EN Wikipedia policy
As per Bastique. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an English Wikipedia-specific implementation of one aspect of a Wikimedia wide policy. --bainer (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hasn't it been so for... as long as it has existed? 68.39.174.238 00:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Page title
Shouldn't this page be Office actions with a small a, not a capital A? --BigDT 23:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We could consider "Office Action" a proper noun... —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Office Action" is not a proper noun. Moved. ~ PseudoSudo 23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is whether there can exist something called an "Office Action" as opposed to merely any ordinary "action" done by the "Office". Any ordinary action by the Office might not be an "Office Action" under the context of this policy. The Wikimedia Foundation Office do all sorts of actions that involve no action taken on the wiki, or adding to a list on this page; they are not Office Actions. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see; however there isn't any precedent for exceptions like these on any other policy pages. Intentional or not, the capitalization makes Jimbo's words seem as if they came straight of the Bible, and, while it gives essentially a realistic impression of what's going on, it's not the right mindset.  To clarify, perhaps we can either be a little clearer in the opening sentence ("Office actions" is a term used to describe..."), or change the name of the policy entirely to one less ambiguous.  We try to stick to Naming conventions as often as we can.  ~ PseudoSudo 14:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)