Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/09 2019
This page will host the consultation from September 30 to October 30. You are invited to learn about its context further below and share your ideas on the relevant talk page sections. Please do not edit this page directly.
Hello, and welcome to the Wikimedia Foundation's Community consultation on the topic of partial and temporary Foundation bans. After the English Wikipedia's community examined a partial and temporary Foundation office action ban in June 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation has suspended use of partial and temporary Foundation bans as of 2 July 2019. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees requested that staff hold this consultation to "re-evaluat[e] or add community input to the two new office action policy tools (temporary and partial Foundation bans)", and the executive director subsequently affirmed that "[the Foundation] will seek further community feedback on those [partial/temporary tools] changes".
- 1 Purpose of the consultation
- 1.1 How should partial and temporary Foundation bans be used (if at all)? On all projects, or only on a subset?
- 1.2 Can the Office Actions policy on partial and temporary bans, as written (circa June 2019), be used? If not, what changes need to be made to its text?
- 1.3 How should partial and temporary Foundation bans ideally be implemented, if they should be?
- 2 Policy as written, circa early June 2019
- 3 Closure and summary of the consultation
Purpose of the consultation
Partial and temporary Foundation bans under the office actions policy can be beneficial to the Wikimedia communities in the following situations (and/or combination of situations):
- When there is repeated abuse that the local community is not able to adequately address, whether due to lack of resources, external threats or lack of appropriate community processes.
- When the egregious abuse is limited to a single, often mature community project but the user is contributing constructively and non abusively in a smaller project where their activity significantly contributes to the development of the project.
- When the trigger causing the persistent, concerning behavior is unique to one community project but there are no grounds to be concerned about the user’s broader contributions to the movement at large.
This consultation is intended to give the global Wikimedia community space to discuss three things:
How should partial and temporary Foundation bans be used (if at all)? On all projects, or only on a subset?
- Large ones with an elaborate conflict resolution body such as the ArbCom on the English language Wikipedia
- Medium-sized ones with a working process for conflict resolution but not elaborate or fully formal
- Small ones where neither follow up on all edits is done nor a proper conflict resolution mechanism exists within the community
Can the Office Actions policy on partial and temporary bans, as written (circa June 2019), be used? If not, what changes need to be made to its text?
- If complaints are evaluated privately, under which circumstances should contributors be allowed to learn the standards by which their behavior is being judged?
- How might privately evaluated confidential complaints prevent abusive or retaliatory accusations?
How should partial and temporary Foundation bans ideally be implemented, if they should be?
- For what types of behavior should the Foundation issue partial or temporary office actions?
- Should partial and temporary office actions be appealable?
- What duration(s) should be available for partial and temporary office actions?
- What other considerations should be taken into account when using partial or temporary office actions?
- To what extent should the community be allowed to participate in the discussion about temporary Office Actions? What if the temporary Office Actions were challenged by the local community?
Policy as written, circa early June 2019
Closure and summary of the consultation
During the pre-conversation phase, it was discussed how the summary and findings of the consultation would be drafted. Two options are available:
- The community can handle the closure if the volunteers can find an uninvolved Wikimedia steward who volunteers to review and close it in a timely manner at the end of the consultation.
- If 1) can't be done, the Foundation will close the consultation in a publicly available summary of findings.
Under either option, Legal will conduct the final review and make changes to the summary if merited.