User talk:TParis
Welcome to Meta![edit]
Hello TParis, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!
-- 03:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
"Opposed"[edit]
No other grant ideas are adorned with an "Opposed" section. Do you mind if I move your Opposition section to the Talk page of the Idea? - Thekohser (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I oppose the concept of moving the comments as undermining consensus building. Proudly displaying endorsements on the front page while hiding inconvenient opposes gives a false sense of support where it doesn't (necessarily) exist. No others are adorned with one because others have been moving my comments. That appears to be the norm, though, so I won't take special offense toward you if you do it.--TParis (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I myself have been victimized by other people moving my comments to "places less seen", so there would be a certain ironic hypocrisy if I were to move your comments without your approval, or at least begrudging agreement. That said, can you show me some examples of other Grant proposals where "Oppose" comments were shunted off somewhere else? And, I'm hoping through this dialogue that I might better learn why you'd be so moved to enter an opposing view anyway, because I would have thought that (in some sense) you would be an ally of this process of giving the banned a temporary voice to provide feedback. - Thekohser (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- You have my begrudging support if only because I don't want to be disruptive. But, that Jimbo discussion was a misunderstanding. I know who Kohs is and I know he and Jimmy aren't drinking buddies, but I hadn't realized that he's explicitly exempt from the Jimbo appeals process. That's something that only someone who spends a lot of time trying to appease Jimbo on his talk page could know. I'm not opposed to your idea like I am the others. I just imagine your selection of 20 people being former editors with the biggest grudges getting to mouth off about all the people who they feel wronged by. If it were an anonymous survey where the max input was maybe 100 characters then I think you'd be less likely to see massive rants about the "innocent users getting bullied by abusive administrators" etc. And, so you know, I am very sympathetic to giving banned and blocked editors a voice. I was, after all, the one who helped en:User:Defacto get unbanned recently after 4 years and I still keep an open ear toward Kumioko - though I've stopped responding recently.--TParis (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, didn't realize you were Kohs. Good to meet you.--TParis (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- You didn't realize User:Thekohser was Kohs? Hmm... Makes me wonder how carefully you've been considering the proposal. Sorry. Anyway, the point of the Grant idea is to understand the impact of being blocked banned on the blocked/banned person. There should be little to no emphasis on ranting about the bully administrators. That can be defused with a simple, "I understand that the backstory is important, but every block had some balance of justice and injustice. We're not here to mete that out. We're here to understand how your life was impacted after the block or ban." See? - Thekohser (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think you have too much faith in other people to stick with your goals and not take an opportunity to advance their own. How would you select blocked/banned users and contact them?--TParis (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- You didn't realize User:Thekohser was Kohs? Hmm... Makes me wonder how carefully you've been considering the proposal. Sorry. Anyway, the point of the Grant idea is to understand the impact of being blocked banned on the blocked/banned person. There should be little to no emphasis on ranting about the bully administrators. That can be defused with a simple, "I understand that the backstory is important, but every block had some balance of justice and injustice. We're not here to mete that out. We're here to understand how your life was impacted after the block or ban." See? - Thekohser (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, didn't realize you were Kohs. Good to meet you.--TParis (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- You have my begrudging support if only because I don't want to be disruptive. But, that Jimbo discussion was a misunderstanding. I know who Kohs is and I know he and Jimmy aren't drinking buddies, but I hadn't realized that he's explicitly exempt from the Jimbo appeals process. That's something that only someone who spends a lot of time trying to appease Jimbo on his talk page could know. I'm not opposed to your idea like I am the others. I just imagine your selection of 20 people being former editors with the biggest grudges getting to mouth off about all the people who they feel wronged by. If it were an anonymous survey where the max input was maybe 100 characters then I think you'd be less likely to see massive rants about the "innocent users getting bullied by abusive administrators" etc. And, so you know, I am very sympathetic to giving banned and blocked editors a voice. I was, after all, the one who helped en:User:Defacto get unbanned recently after 4 years and I still keep an open ear toward Kumioko - though I've stopped responding recently.--TParis (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I myself have been victimized by other people moving my comments to "places less seen", so there would be a certain ironic hypocrisy if I were to move your comments without your approval, or at least begrudging agreement. That said, can you show me some examples of other Grant proposals where "Oppose" comments were shunted off somewhere else? And, I'm hoping through this dialogue that I might better learn why you'd be so moved to enter an opposing view anyway, because I would have thought that (in some sense) you would be an ally of this process of giving the banned a temporary voice to provide feedback. - Thekohser (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Survey on Inspire Campaign for addressing harassment[edit]
Thanks for your participation during the Inspire Campaign focused on addressing harassment from June 2016. I'm interested in hearing your experience during the campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating.
Please feel free to let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about the campaign or the survey. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
User reporting system consultation[edit]
Hello,
You are receiving this message because you have previously created or commented on an idea related to reporting harassment; and may have an interested in giving feedback about a new initiative to develop a user reporting system.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken.
The success of this project depends on collecting ideas and feedback from people in a variety of different roles in the Wikimedia movement. To this end, there will be a multi-phased consultation where you can participate in ways that you find most comfortable.
Please visit the User reporting system consultation page to learn more about the process, to ask questions, or to offer feedback. You also can sign up to be be a liaison for you group, to translate pages or messages, or to host a discussion group (on or off wiki.)
Please share this message with other people who you think would be interested in this project.
Cheers, SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative 15:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)