User talk:JEissfeldt (WMF)

• English
• German
• Spanish

Du hast

Mail. --Hubertl (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Contract Vietnamese Language Specialist Strategy Coordinator

Can people who live in Vietnam apply for this job? Thank you! Nguyentrongphu (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Strategy process

Deine Zusammenfassungen halte ich für hochgradig biased. Es ist schlicht nicht wahr, dass zB auf DE ein starkes Interesse an "technical improvements" geäußert worden wäre, schon gar nicht an "stronger investment in alternative knowledge formats". Ich kann mir vorstellen, dass der Apparat der WMF gern eine solche Botschaft hören möchte, und irgendwer ist immer zu finden, der so etwas meint, aber das ist definitiv nicht der Tenor der Diskussion. "A focus on content quality" kann ich bestätigen, "potentially including paid content creation" ist, soweit ich sehe, überhaupt nicht angesprochen worden, von keinem einzigen User. Es zeigt sich eben erneut, dass der Strategy process überhaupt kein wirkliches Interesse an den Community-Diskussionen zeigt, und so ist er auch von vornherein angelegt gewesen. Man sucht eben Bestätigung für das, was man eh schon vorhat zu machen.--Mautpreller (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

September 4

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Problem with a harasser

Hello Jan,

Sorry to bother you, I contacted info@wikimedia.org who suggested to contact Trust and Safety Team with my issue, that's why I'm here.

Because of my activities on French Wikipedia, a guy is harrassing me on Twitter (defamation, insults, fakes...). In his tweets, there are screenshots of some Wikipedia pages he consulted with its phone using Wifi. So we have the hour and the name of the page.

The idea is to get I.P. I know you can't give it to me but I will fill a lawsuit and a judge might ask for it.

My questions :

1. Who is the contact who can take this descision?
2. Will Wikimedia provide the information if it's formally requested by a French judge?

Cheers,

François - FR (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

WMF (temporary) ban of Fram

Greetings,

there have been some questions on en:Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#User:Fram banned for 1 year by WMF office about the recent ban of Fram. I realize that this is probably not really a matter suitable for public discussion, but an official statement by T & S might be warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion has shifted to en:Wikipedia:Community response to Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram as there are still some outstanding questions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

English Wikipedia

We continue to lose more and more very active admins every day, along with some bureaucrats, which will soon result in problems not getting resolved as timely as they might (or not resolved at all). And this situation is made worse by insensitive tweets from WMF which demonstrate that there is a lack of care and consideration for one of Wikimedia's biggest projects and the mammoth FREE efforts of its volunteers. This will get worse before it gets better because it frankly looks like the Foundation doesn't give a damn at all.

Frankly, there's hope that this leads to protests at this coming WikiMania because it seems like the Foundation hasn't heard that voices of its volunteers. The situation as it is right now is unacceptable and it actually has little to do with the ban of Fram and more about the inept handling of this whole affair and lack of responsiveness by the WMF. Liz (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Please confirm

Hello Jan!

T&S received a report regarding an ongoing harassment case on 2 July 2019, and a precursor on 30 June. Can you please acknowledge receiving these emails, or point to the proper venue to make this report? Thank you in advance.

Yours sincerely, Aron Manning (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Breitbart removals

Hi, could you clarify something for me? I wrote a Breitbart article regarding recent events on Wikipedia and the editor-in-chief of the Signpost removed any mention of the article from the page about media coverage and made a response that seemed to suggest it was at the request of the Trust and Safety team. Members of the Arbitration Committee also removed the article from the spam white-list and other places. Was the removal from the Signpost really prompted by a complaint from the Trust and Safety team? Did the Arbitration Committee also remove links to my article after a request from the Trust and Safety team? Can you explain the reasoning behind such a request, if indeed one was made? My article only mentioned things contained on-wiki, such as this section where the Chair of the Foundation Board responded to accusations made by off-site critics and repeated by members of the community. If you like you can respond here or at this discussion on the English Wikipedia where the question of including the article on relevant pages is being discussed as I will see a response if posted on that page. Someone already mentioned this prospect of T&S involvement there, so it would be warranted. Thank you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you see the above message? Are you intending to respond to the above?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello? I am still waiting for a response. Do you intend to give one as to whether Trust and Safety requested removing mention of my Breitbart piece from the Signpost or whether they requested removal of my piece from the spam white-list?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Any response to my question? For clarity, my question should also cover my Breitbart piece being brought up at all as a concern to either Smallbones at the Signpost or members of the Arbitration Committee, even if there was not a direct request for removal. Even if you do not believe I am owed an explanation, I would think the community would need to know whether they are allowed to mention the existence of my piece in Breitbart, linked or otherwise.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User:WMF Trademark Abuse

There is an undocumented WMF role account named User:WMF Trademark Abuse, which has never edited any wiki and doesn't appear to be linked to from anywhere. Is this account intended to be used at any point in the future? If not, perhaps it should be locked and marked as inactive?

(The account's creator and listed contact is former Community Advocacy director Philippe Beaudette, and since CA became T&S, I'm assuming you count as his successor. If not, I'd appreciate if you could tell me who I should contact about this.)

If the account is intended to be used in the future, it should probably be documented in the appropriate places (its userpage, the role account page...). --Yair rand (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Yair rand:, much thanks for flagging this. This role account is no longer in use. I have reinstated the lock and marked it appropriately. Best regards Samuel (WMF) (talk)

Thank you for helping to create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations

		Wikimedia 2030
		Thank you very much for everything you did to help create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations! I am especially grateful for the enormous amount of work you did in the Community Health working group and all the care and commitment you brought to the process. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons thread of interest

Hi Jan, hope you are well. Would like to draw your attention to the following thread at Commons: c:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#False_Allegations. As an outsider looking in, I have some significant issues with how the community handled this from a Safety perspective. Homophobic harassment and attempting doxing cannot be condoned by any project, least of all our central repository of media. I also find the statement "Commons doesn't have an approved harrasment policy" as being concerning on a cultural level. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jan, I'm one of the editors involved in that thread. I believe it's fairly easy to work out what happened, and why I was concerned, but I'd be happy to discuss it with you if you like, either here on by e-mail. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 10:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Moin @Daniel: and @Girth Summit:, I hear and read your concerns and want to thank you for bringing the issues to my attention.

You might be aware that the Wikimedia Foundation currently is working to support the community in finalizing the enforcement guidelines. Unlike large Wikipedia projects, Commons itself is indeed one of the projects with not very well developed policies - a fact confirmed in the research around the UCoC.

However, as a Wikimedia project Commons falls under both the Terms of Use’s general ban on harassment and the UCoC, which specifically addresses harassment because of sexual orientation and doxing. I am happy to note that administrators on the project did react and remove the doxed information after all, but agree with you that local community self-governance on such issues need to improve. The work that is currently done by the community and the Wikimedia Foundation on the UCoC is pointing in this direction.

Harassment issues sometimes are highly complex and dealing with them as a volunteer is not easy. Clearer guidelines for enforcement will help administrators to make better, and quicker, decisions. My current understanding is that the volunteer-led drafting committee is aiming to publish its first enforcement guidelines for community review next week.

It would be great if you would take the time to help review the draft and propose improvements for the committee’s consideration. The better the guidelines get, the fewer gaps there will be in self-governance processes in the future. If the concern is only about this case in particular, then ca@wikimedia.org would be the right pathway to explore it within the framework of how T&S Operations supports local wikis that struggle to uphold the policies. Best regards, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this response Jan - it's good to know that things that might make a difference in this area are moving forward. Thanks also for the link to the enforcement guidelines review, which I will read, consider and comment on.

At risk of labouring the point about the thread mentioned above, while you are correct that a Commons admin did eventually take action, that only happened after another user reached out to CptViraj personally on IRC. I posted message after message after message on the public notice board, pinging various admins and trying to get attention, to no avail. If I had been completely ignored, I might have assumed that the noticeboard was just poorly attended or that the admins I was pinging were offline; what happened though was that people responded to me, but did nothing about the doxxing. Nobody took appropriate action until the IRC channel was used. What if I had been an inexperienced user, experiencing harassment, receiving no support, and unaware of IRC channels?

I don't know if there's anything that you can do immediately, and I do not mean to place this at your doorstep and expect you to fix it with a click of your fingers. However it is my view that Commons, as of right now, is not a safe space for our contributors to work in, and that if they are followed and harassed there after a conflict on another project they may receive no support. I am deeply saddened by that thought. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Moin @Girth Summit:. I agree that the pathway you thankfully took to help address the issue wouldn't be practical for new users. It is one of the challenges that we all have to carefully consider as we review the proposals of the community-led drafting committee for sensible local enforcement structures. Best regards, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A request

Hi Jan , We have posted an open letter to the Foundation and Board of Trustees. It concerns the development of MediaWiki extensions and needs the personal attention of all concerned developers and managers. Please see it at:

Open_letter_from_English_Wikipedia_New_Page_Reviewers

and

en:Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Coordination/2022_WMF_letter

Your comments are welcome. Many thanks.

Kind regards,

On behalf of the English Wikipedia Community

Kudpung (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

We need your feedback on a tool from the Wikimedia Summit

Reminder: the guide to using Baserow, presented during the Wikimedia Summit.

Hi! I'm contacting you as one of the participants in the Wikimedia Summit 2022, to kindly ask for your feedback through a 5-10 minute survey to evaluate 'Baserow' (note: the survey is on a Google form).

Baserow was a tool through which participants in the Summit co-created a database of Movement Strategy activities. We hope to learn from you how useful it may be to keep using it in the future to help document and connect on Movement Strategy work.

You are welcome and encouraged to fill out the survey in any language. Your feedback would be very appreciated --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC).

Some questions regarding the office action in Chinese Wikipedia in October 2021

The questions are in w:zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/其他#可能需要基金会澄清的问题. It would be appreciated if the questions can be replied rapidly and in details. Sanmosa _Outdia 09:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)