Wikipedia talk:Office actions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Office actions page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:OFFICE

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 92 days

This page was nominated for deletion on June 24, 2019. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn.

Editors have been disagreeing about whether or not we should have a criticism section on this page. Aside from the issue of sourcing (that I don't much care about, since this isn't in mainspace), I want to offer the opinion that the section should be removed. I say that because this page is an information page, so its intended function is to tell someone who reads it what office actions are. The function is not to present both sides of an issue, or to be NPOV. I say, delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minded to agree. It's a policy page, not an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Any editor looking to learn about it should know there is not a clear consensus on some office actions. It actually got press outside our pages as well (Slate, Buzzfeed, Daily Beast) so this isn't about WP:NPOV, it' a page is an informational tool used by editors of all experience levels who should understand that the community can, and has, had reason (and the right) to seek changes in some Office Actions, which are NOT the same as community actions. To omit this short example is to pretend there is a consensus where it doesn't exist, and that sometimes the community has to voice disagreement, and that is ok. We don't need more than this one entry, but it is part of the history of "Office Actions" which are not a static thing, but an evolving and sometimes changing method of the WMF taking action.. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I see where you are coming from, and it gives me an idea. If the purpose is to indicate that there is not really a community consensus about what is described on this information page, then the page should communicate that more clearly, and I have no objection to it. That's not quite the same thing as having a criticism section, the way we might have such a section in mainspace.

  Right now, the text reads: Shared office role accounts, such as User:WMFOffice, have been criticised by the community due to a perceived lack of communication and accountability. I'm thinking we should remove the section header, and change the paragraph to say something like: Office actions do not necessarily have widespread community consensus, in part because shared office role accounts, such as User:WMFOffice, may lack sufficient communication and accountability. And then have the same footnote as now. Would that be acceptable? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:BOLD, I did that: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine. I just don't want to whitewash the page, and instead be honest that "office actions" are not automatically "above" community will, there is some give and take, and that sometimes (rarely, perhaps) their actions are contentious and worth protesting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]