User talk:Jalexander-WMF: Difference between revisions
→Thoughts of how WMF to step in here?: new section |
→Thoughts of how WMF to step in here?: note regarding timing, thanks! |
||
| Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
Over in ArbCom land, [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Soap desysopped and banned]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The Devil's Advocate banned]], there is a venture into new territory. These two particular actions were taken based exclusively on accusations of off-site harassment. Is there a way to move these actions into an office action rather than ArbCom? It seems problematic to me for a quasi-official committee to publicly accuse an editor of harassment (which can mean anything from "annoying" to "criminal behavior"). Usually, an ArbCom case puts findings in the context of "on-wiki" behaviour so terms like "harassment" are bounded by the findings. These pronouncements lack those diffs/details in the interest of protecting the victim or for privacy reasons. I am concerned that this is creating jeopardy as it may need legal review before such broad accusations are made without bounding it in the context of a Wikipedia dispute. Imagine an editors future employer running across "Banned from Wikipedia for off-site harassment" with no context. It seems that if such behaviour is that serious, it should be a WMF action possibly coming from your department so that harassment, safety and WMF are all properly represented and you can consult whatever WMF resources are needed to block harassing editors without creating BLP and legal jeopardy. Maybe a solution is ArbCom forwarding their review and findings for possible Office Action. These aren't common (actually relatively new). Thoughts? --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 06:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC) |
Over in ArbCom land, [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Soap desysopped and banned]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The Devil's Advocate banned]], there is a venture into new territory. These two particular actions were taken based exclusively on accusations of off-site harassment. Is there a way to move these actions into an office action rather than ArbCom? It seems problematic to me for a quasi-official committee to publicly accuse an editor of harassment (which can mean anything from "annoying" to "criminal behavior"). Usually, an ArbCom case puts findings in the context of "on-wiki" behaviour so terms like "harassment" are bounded by the findings. These pronouncements lack those diffs/details in the interest of protecting the victim or for privacy reasons. I am concerned that this is creating jeopardy as it may need legal review before such broad accusations are made without bounding it in the context of a Wikipedia dispute. Imagine an editors future employer running across "Banned from Wikipedia for off-site harassment" with no context. It seems that if such behaviour is that serious, it should be a WMF action possibly coming from your department so that harassment, safety and WMF are all properly represented and you can consult whatever WMF resources are needed to block harassing editors without creating BLP and legal jeopardy. Maybe a solution is ArbCom forwarding their review and findings for possible Office Action. These aren't common (actually relatively new). Thoughts? --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 06:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
:{{ping|DHeyward}} Thanks for the ping, quickly noting that I've seen this and plan to give a mull full answer in the next couple days (possibly this weekend but most likely Monday or Tuesday). I want to make sure it's a more complete answer and unfortunately the combo of the holiday, next week's WMF All-Staff and my role in coordinating the WMF Election Committee (which has been reactivated to advise the board given recent board changes) means I'm juggling a couple things right now so it will take a bit longer then I'd like. Thanks again! [[User:Jalexander-WMF|Jalexander]]--[[Wikimedia Foundation|WMF]] 07:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 07:26, 1 January 2016
|
|||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Jalexander, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
-- Cirt (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!)
| Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join us for a full afternoon and evening of social Wikipedia editing at the Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles covering the lives and works of women in architecture.
In conjunction with Archtober and New York Archives Week, the Guggenheim will host its third Wikipedia edit-a-thon—or, #guggathon— to enhance articles related to women in architecture on Wikipedia. The Guggenheim aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that, by its nature combines both. The Guggenheim will work alongside ArchiteXX, the founders of WikiD: Women Wikipedia Design #wikiD, the international education and advocacy program working to increase the number of Wikipedia articles on women in architecture and the built environment. New and experienced editors are welcome. Can’t join us in New York? Visit our global partnerships page to discover an edit-a-thon in a city near you or simply join remotely. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!)
| Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join us for a full day and evening of social Wikipedia editing at the Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles covering the lives and works of women in architecture.
In conjunction with Archtober and New York Archives Week, the Guggenheim will host its third Wikipedia edit-a-thon—or, #guggathon—to enhance articles related to women in architecture on Wikipedia. The Guggenheim aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that, by its nature combines both. The Guggenheim will work alongside ArchiteXX, the founders of WikiD: Women Wikipedia Design #wikiD, the international education and advocacy program working to increase the number of Wikipedia articles on women in architecture and the built environment. New and experienced editors are welcome. Can’t join us in New York? Visit our global partnerships page to discover an edit-a-thon in a city near you or simply join remotely. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
| Wednesday October 28, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project! We will also include a look at our annual plan and budget ideas, to see if the chapter is able to fiscally sponsor more ongoing projects tied to our core mission of expanding and diversifying free knowledge. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Bonus events, RSVP now for our latest upcoming editathons:
| |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Sunday Nov 22: Soviet Jewry Edit-a-thon & Women In Science Edit-a-thon
| Two options for this Sunday: Soviet Jewry Edit-a-thon & Women In Science Edit-a-thon | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for one of two edit-a-thons this Sunday, just bring your laptop and an interest in participating! No special knowledge of the subject or Wikipedia knowledge is required, and there will be Wikipedia training workshops for new folks. Soviet Jewry Edit-a-thon @ Center for Jewish History
Join at the Center for Jewish History (drop-in any time!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles pertaining to the American Soviet Jewry movement. Women In Science Edit-a-thon @ NY Academy of Sciences
Join at the NY Academy of Sciences, during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles pertaining to the lives and works of women scientists. Note that seating is limited for the Women in Science event, as well as signing up on-wiki, please RSVP by email. Bonus event:
| |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
| Wednesday December 9, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project! We will also include a look at our annual plan and budget ideas, and welcome input from community members on the sorts of projects the chapter should support through both volunteer and budgetary efforts. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! (One talk this month will be on use of Wikipedia press passes for photographers.) Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Bonus events, RSVP now for our upcoming editathons:
| |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Saturday January 16: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference
| Saturday January 16: Wikipedia Day NYC 2016 | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join us at New York University for Wikipedia Day NYC 2016, a Wikipedia celebration and mini-conference as part of Wikipedia 15, the project's global 15th birthday festivities. In addition to the party, the event will be a participatory unconference, with plenary panels, lightning talks, and of course open space sessions. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |
Thoughts of how WMF to step in here?
Over in ArbCom land, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Soap desysopped and banned and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The Devil's Advocate banned, there is a venture into new territory. These two particular actions were taken based exclusively on accusations of off-site harassment. Is there a way to move these actions into an office action rather than ArbCom? It seems problematic to me for a quasi-official committee to publicly accuse an editor of harassment (which can mean anything from "annoying" to "criminal behavior"). Usually, an ArbCom case puts findings in the context of "on-wiki" behaviour so terms like "harassment" are bounded by the findings. These pronouncements lack those diffs/details in the interest of protecting the victim or for privacy reasons. I am concerned that this is creating jeopardy as it may need legal review before such broad accusations are made without bounding it in the context of a Wikipedia dispute. Imagine an editors future employer running across "Banned from Wikipedia for off-site harassment" with no context. It seems that if such behaviour is that serious, it should be a WMF action possibly coming from your department so that harassment, safety and WMF are all properly represented and you can consult whatever WMF resources are needed to block harassing editors without creating BLP and legal jeopardy. Maybe a solution is ArbCom forwarding their review and findings for possible Office Action. These aren't common (actually relatively new). Thoughts? --DHeyward (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- @DHeyward: Thanks for the ping, quickly noting that I've seen this and plan to give a mull full answer in the next couple days (possibly this weekend but most likely Monday or Tuesday). I want to make sure it's a more complete answer and unfortunately the combo of the holiday, next week's WMF All-Staff and my role in coordinating the WMF Election Committee (which has been reactivated to advise the board given recent board changes) means I'm juggling a couple things right now so it will take a bit longer then I'd like. Thanks again! Jalexander--WMF 07:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)