Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Office actions

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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn: There are currently too many forums discussing this article and the proliferation of forums isn't helping. It appears that initial community sentiment in response to the MfD is not to delete, which I'm not contesting. Promethean (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Office actions

The article in question is mostly an FAQ for the Foundation that attempts to explain Office Actions from the view of the Foundation. For this reason, it is arguable that the topic matter transcends en-wiki and should be presented and maintained on either Meta or Foundation wiki. Proposing to redirect to either. In light of the editing dispute that has arisen and sentiment within the community, this seemed like the most logical way forward to resolve the dispute at Wikipedia_talk:Office_actions Promethean (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

technical keep.....Administrative deletion of a locked page in dispute???? We have very specific processes in place for pages like this ....Could all read over WP:PRJDEL(second paragraph) then WP:HISTORICAL for the process on how to proceed.--Moxy 🍁 22:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: Thanks; Is there any reason the content shouldn't be presented on Foundation wiki, just like the Terms of Service is? Promethean (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in fact the page should list the office actions where possible that have taken place giving examples of how this is a process here on English Wikipedia.. should also detail English Wikipedia's concern over administrative actions here.... nevertheless we should follow WP:PRJDEL advice.--Moxy 🍁 22:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: Please see my explanation below to Masum Reza: The proposal isn't to delete the page, hence WP:PRJDEL does not apply. Rather, the proposal is to redirect our copy to Meta or Foundation, so that there can be one copy of the OA article, as an information page, that is easily maintained by WMF staff. Right now, WMF staff have to come into en-wiki just to update our copy of the article, which is a complete waste of time for something they clearly have ownership over. This ties into the Terms of Service; The Terms of Service is on Foundation wiki, so why not have the Office Actions FAQ there also? Promethean (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect ~~Keep~~ Meta wiki is the central wiki for all WikiMedia projects. We here at English Wikipedia have a little different guidelines and policies (We adapt the policies in our own way). ~~So I think it's fair to keep it here.~~ Masum Reza^📞 22:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Office actions are the same across all wikis. Vermont (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But there is no harm in keeping it here. Masum Reza^📞 23:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masumrezarock100 There is harm; If every project maintained its own OA article, then that means WMF staff have to update every project when they make changes, wasting valuable time and resources. Furthermore, having the article here implies that this is local policy / information, when really, this stuff is maintained by the Foundation - I doubt they really want editors changing the information on the OA page, and I don't think they like the possibility of locally inconsistent copies of the OA explanation article. Finally, having it here gives rise to the article becoming a hive of drama when controversial OAs are taken - If it were on Meta or Foundation, that wouldn't be the case. Again, the proposal isn't to delete the page, but rather to have a redirect to Meta or Foundation's copy. Promethean (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've striked out my above comments and I agree to soft-redirect it to meta-wiki. Also @Promethean: thanks for sending me a TalkBack. I see here that you pinged me. But to be honest, I never received any mention from you. It's because you added a ping template to your reply after posting it. To know how this procedure works, please read WP:PING. Masum Reza^📞 23:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recent events show it is obviously important for enwiki to keeps its own documentation. Zero valid reasons to delete the long history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: Is there a reason why a copy on either of these Wiki's would not suffice? Not arguing, just interested in your perspective. Promethean (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a worthy talk page thread. MfD is for deletion discussions. If you want more eyes, call an RfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as opposed to delete. But discussing various options for dealing with this page should certainly be pursued elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft-Redirect to Meta - This page should only ever be a rehash of the policy on Meta by its very design, and so it makes little sense to reproduce the content here as opposed to pointing to the other wiki (since cross-wiki redirects are not technically possible; hence soft-redirect). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We may change the content here, but that doesn't change the need for this page and is outside the scope of MfD. As to scope, then this is clearly the en:WP scope, not something imposed externally from Meta. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Office actions are imposed externally by the WMF Office; if this page differs from metawiki's version in any detail, it's incorrect. Metawiki does and will have the most updated information; that's the point of metawiki, as office actions apply to all wikis. Vermont (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - factual and relevant to enwiki. Suggesting merging in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by WMF Office and expanding with details of other Office Actions performed on enwiki. SilkTork (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- SilkTork Could you help me understand what Office Actions are performed exclusively on enwiki such that soft-redirect to meta's copy of the same article would not suffice, much in the same way we handle the Terms of Service on Foundation wiki? Also, are you suggesting that the Office Actions article, and powers described therein, is subject to enwiki consensus? Promethean (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid Wikipedia policy, and removing it would be detrimental to the project, all because WMF did something we didn't like and can't agree on how to collectively respond. SportingFlyer T·C 23:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever else, deleting the history of the revisions of this page and its talk will confound the editors who want to see how long there was apparent tolerance of this state of affairs. If WMF won't follow our consensus policy, fine, put a note to that effect on it, or something. Wnt (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly relevant to wiki.See no reasons to delete the history.This is a valid Wikipedia policy.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.