| Revision as of 19:29, 11 June 2019 view sourceWMFOffice (talk | contribs)301 edits →Fram's talk pages: add reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:00, 11 June 2019 view source Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors266,658 edits →Fram's talk pages: cNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| ::The ban is preposterous. The actions taken on Fram's talk page is beyond stupidity.], is the complaint department really on ] 15:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC) | ::The ban is preposterous. The actions taken on Fram's talk page is beyond stupidity.], is the complaint department really on ] 15:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC) | ||
| Note that I made no |
Note that I made no comment about the ban itself, nor about protection of the talk page. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :Hi Andy, thanks for pointing this out. Our standard when placing an Office Action ban has been to blank user and talk pages, since the user is barred indefinitely from all projects and has no further need for those pages. We went with that standard when implementing this ban, too, but you have a good point about this case being different. We agree that there is no need to remove the archives from Fram’s talk page. We’re going to return the content to Fram’s talk page, with the ban notice at the top. When Fram returns from their ban in a year, they are free to decide what to do with the current contents of their talk, whether they wish to archive them or not. ] (]) 19:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC) | :Hi Andy, thanks for pointing this out. Our standard when placing an Office Action ban has been to blank user and talk pages, since the user is barred indefinitely from all projects and has no further need for those pages. We went with that standard when implementing this ban, too, but you have a good point about this case being different. We agree that there is no need to remove the archives from Fram’s talk page. We’re going to return the content to Fram’s talk page, with the ban notice at the top. When Fram returns from their ban in a year, they are free to decide what to do with the current contents of their talk, whether they wish to archive them or not. ] (]) 19:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thank you. What I said should apply in the case of "all project" bans. The talk page often has contributions from other editors, in good standing, and that content should be archived, not deleted. An (unfortunate) analogy could be made with how we do that for the talk pages of deceased editors. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 20:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Use of account for replies to queries == | == Use of account for replies to queries == | ||
Revision as of 20:00, 11 June 2019
Fram's talk pages
Please restore the archive box to User talk:Fram - the current situation should not mean that barriers should be placed in the way of other editors, seeking to find past discussions in which they were involved, or have an interest. More generally, please do not remove such boxes in other cases.
Also, please restore the large amount of material you removed in this edit onto one or more pages in that archive. Again, more generally, please do not remove discussions (aside from any that must be oversighted, of course) without archiving them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- What Andy said. Adding: I find it sad to have to go to other Wikipedias to express my feelings. I don't think protection of the talk page is needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- The ban is preposterous. The actions taken on Fram's talk page is beyond stupidity....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Note that I made no comment about the ban itself, nor about protection of the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Andy, thanks for pointing this out. Our standard when placing an Office Action ban has been to blank user and talk pages, since the user is barred indefinitely from all projects and has no further need for those pages. We went with that standard when implementing this ban, too, but you have a good point about this case being different. We agree that there is no need to remove the archives from Fram’s talk page. We’re going to return the content to Fram’s talk page, with the ban notice at the top. When Fram returns from their ban in a year, they are free to decide what to do with the current contents of their talk, whether they wish to archive them or not. WMFOffice (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. What I said should apply in the case of "all project" bans. The talk page often has contributions from other editors, in good standing, and that content should be archived, not deleted. An (unfortunate) analogy could be made with how we do that for the talk pages of deceased editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Use of account for replies to queries
This is a legitimate role account authorized by the Wikimedia Foundation to perform Office actions.
The following are listed as the legitimate office actions:
- Foundation global ban
- Temporary Foundation global ban
- Partial Foundation ban
- Foundation event ban
- DMCA compliance
- Child protection
- Secondary office actions
- Conduct warning
- Interaction ban
- Removal of advanced rights
I do not see included in this list the use of this account for responding to queries or posting in discussions. Where is such use authorised? · · · Peter Southwood : 14:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)