用户讨论:JEissfeldt (WMF)
感谢您对维基百科的兴趣与贡献，希望您会喜欢这里。除了欢迎辞以外，也请您了解以下重要文章：
 |
 |
 |
 If you have any questions about the Chinese Wikipedia, please leave a message here. Thank you for visiting!
| ||
- 阅读新手应该注意的七种常见错误、理解维基百科的立场与常见注意事项。
- 有任何编辑上的问题？请试试IRC即时讨论。也可到此处提问，其他维基人见到后就会来提供帮助。
- 不知道有什么可写？条目请求、最多语言版本的待撰条目、缺少的传统百科全书条目和首页的缺失条目中列出了许多维基百科目前还没有的条目，欢迎您来撰写！
- 希望您能享受共同编写百科的乐趣，成为一名充实的维基百科人。
我是欢迎您的维基人：S. Wang-->中文维基条目已达70万！！ 2013年6月18日 (二) 23:56 (UTC)
Regarding local issues on the WMCUG
[编辑]Hello Jan. Recently, some users from the local community have brought up discussions and petitions to (1) ban WMCUG from activities in Chinese Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, and (2) removing all WMCUG links (that may be in control of globally banned users). While I am not trying to ask you for your opinions on the two discussions, there is a problem that I think I might need your on. (Since this is not about RfA problems, I decided to bring this up not on the discussion page but here.)
User 维基百科最忠诚的反对者 (alias WMLO) is the user bringing up the two requests for voting. They, without asking for opinions from neither local bureaucrats nor Foundation staff, have decided, practically on their own, that all votes from WMCUG members are considered void. WMLO has stated that their intention is to avoid canvassing from inside WMCUG, but I find it more unfair than just preventing canvassing. It sounds like, what if, in the future, someone decides to push a vote for banning people from specific regions (say, mainland China) from running for adminship, and says that mainland Chinese users cannot vote due to conflict of interest and avoid canvassing? I would like to ask for your opinion on how to handle such cases with regards to the Foundation's actions and stance. Thank you! --Luciferian • Talk 04:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC) / 2021年9月18日 (六) 04:42 (UTC)
- Moin @LuciferianThomas：, thank you for the questions. It is important to adhere to the five pillars. As long as a user does that, it does not matter where they come from or their views on the issues that are deeply controversial in the societies the community emerges from. very Wikipedia community struggles with such (somewhat distinct) issues in its own way but all successful Wikipedia communities solve them by making compromises with each other within the framework of the five pillars, not against each other.
- While I would defer to your bureaucrat team, of course, the proposal made by 维基百科最忠诚的反对者, as you explained it to me here, does not strike me as adhering to that standard.It might be useful to have a look at how other communities have solved such problems.
- Both English and Farsi language Wikipedia are complex communities with problems. But both communities also have two important things helping to provide a fair environment all users benefit from: a local arbitration committee (ArbCom) to help solve complex problems even when it involves off-wiki coordination and abuse (example: en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list) and local CheckUsers (in English Wikipedia's case appointed by the committee).
- Both communities elect their ArbCom through SecurePoll. In both these very different and complex communities, this has been a good way to hold elections that are fair and fairly civil compared to traditional onwiki voting. Voters can express their view safely and privately while everyone can still see who voted (but not how). SecurePoll also gathers technical information that enables the election administrators and auditors to protect the election's integrity against sock puppets and paid editing networks.
- If the issue is a choice between a voting mechanism that has worked for other communities already, SecurePoll, or 维基百科最忠诚的反对者's proposal, I would suggest the community tries out SecurePoll. It is aligned with the five pillars to do so. Best regards, --Jan (WMF)（留言） 2021年9月20日 (一) 07:14 (UTC)
- Jan, thank you for your reply and suggestions. I'm sure they would be very helpful for the community's discussion of the topic now and in the near future. --路西法人 • 留言 2021年9月20日 (一) 11:53 (UTC)
Unblock spam filters from global blacklist "wmcug.org.cn"
[编辑]I am a user from Chinese Wikinews. Wikinews is a news website, among which WP:OA2021 will also be covered. Wikinews has Cite Sources policy, and news reports in WP:OA2021 are almost certain to Cite "wmcug.org.cn" as a source. I therefore request and support the unblocking of "wmcug.org.cn" on Wikinews. We would like to ask whether the restriction of "wmcug.org.cn" still applies in our community's journalism work. // 我是来自中文维基新闻的用户。维基新闻是新闻机构，当中，也会报导WP:OA2021的新闻。维基新闻有Cite sources方针，在WP:OA2021的新闻报导是几乎一定会引用到“wmcug.org.cn”作为引用来源。因此我请求并支持在维基新闻解除封锁“wmcug.org.cn”。我们想询问在我们社群的新闻工作下，“wmcug.org.cn”限制是否仍然适用。--Kitabc12345 海南 2021年9月21日 (二) 08:27 (UTC)
- Moin @Kitabc12345： Thank you kindly for reaching out. Deciding to block a link is a privilege of the editing community and I respect that in my Foundation capacity. Assuming the local Chinese language Wikinews "Cite sources" policy is broadly comparable to those on other Wikinews language versions, you probably have the opportunity to move forward with your story even if this issue is not decided quickly. Wikinews communities usually require that the source cited is accessible but not that the community journalist always links to it directly. Otherwise Wikinews volunteers could not cite sources in public libraries that aren't digital, fo example. Thus, it might be worth exploring to that angle, too. Best regards, --Jan (WMF)（留言） 2021年9月21日 (二) 21:27 (UTC)
Regarding user talk pages of globally banned user
[编辑]Hello Jan. Recently someone in the community brought up something about user talk pages of globally banned users, so I forwarded it to the local village pump (topic). I would like to ask for a clarification for whether globally banned users are supposed to (continue to) receive non-mass delivery user messages, ranging from regular user messages to notifications of AfDs, speedy deletions and CheckUser? Does the Foundation mean to clear all these messages when putting on the {{WMF-legal banned user}} template just once or forever (in other words, the user talk page should be kept blank apart from the block template)? Additionally, zhwp also has the Structured Discussion extension optionally enabled. Should these Structured Discussion user talk pages be archived and replaced with a regular wikitext talk page, blank apart from the block template? The community is currently in discussion on the above measures to be taken for user talk pages of globally banned users, and I would like to ask for your/the Office's opinion to confirm with the community that we are not doing something wrong. Regards, Luciferian⛧ 19:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC) / 2021年11月30日 (二) 19:15 (UTC)
- Moin LuciferianThomas, thank you for your thoughtful question.I would recommend to think about through two angles: first, the purpose of notifications usually is to inform users who are active participants of a community. Globally banned users have lost the ability to participate, so such notifications usually serve no purpose. Second, it is important to be transparent with other users who might try to engage with globally banned users on those talk pages in good faith that this former user cannot engage with them. The specific way to address both aspects is within the local community's decision. English language Wikipedia probably has a good approach to consider here: they clear the talk page, add a "user who opt out of messaging delivery" category, and set a banner informing other users. Here is an example in case you are interested. Best regards, --Jan (WMF)（留言） 2021年12月8日 (三) 22:32 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. We do have the ban notice held on the top of those pages of the globally banned users, but it seems like many would still comment on the talk pages (apart from notifications) with the WikiLove extension after the ban (for some who wanted to "pay respects" to those globally banned, or those who felt that the office action was an "injustice"). Should these messages from after the ban be kept or removed?--路西法人⛧ 2021年12月9日 (四) 06:17 (UTC)
- Moin LuciferianThomas. I would recommend keeping them. Within the frameworks governing the platform (Terms of Use, UCoC, Privacy Policy, etc.) and your community's wiki (the five pillars of Wikipedia and Chinese language Wikipedia's unique local community policies), people are perfectly within their rights to express their views, including criticism of office actions they disagree with based on the limited informations about those actions that they can access. Disagreement is an important and legitimate part of community self-governance, essential to making our traditional framework work. Best regards, --Jan (WMF)（留言） 2021年12月16日 (四) 08:17 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. We do have the ban notice held on the top of those pages of the globally banned users, but it seems like many would still comment on the talk pages (apart from notifications) with the WikiLove extension after the ban (for some who wanted to "pay respects" to those globally banned, or those who felt that the office action was an "injustice"). Should these messages from after the ban be kept or removed?--路西法人⛧ 2021年12月9日 (四) 06:17 (UTC)