User talk:TParis
Add topic
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)
Still banned from using UTRS
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I cannot log in right now, and I realize you aren't very active here (as opposed to AmandaNP), but I desperately need my UTRS ban (ban ID #643) lifted, since the "abuse/exploitation of UTRS Software" in question happened over a year ago. Since that abuse involved an English Wikipedia block and not a global lock, it seems quite unnecessary for the ban to remain in place. 2600:1003:B4C0:42BA:0:27:5DC2:3C01 17:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Aw, darn it, my IP changed while I was awaiting your response...Anyway, I'm still hoping you two do something about it. No worries. 2600:1003:B47E:576F:0:11:E8A9:EB01 21:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- It looks to me like someone removed the ban.--TParis (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- For my IP address(es), or for the account Shāntián Tàiláng? The latter is what I meant when I said I couldn't log in because of a global lock (not a global block, so I doubt I'm block-evading). Anyway, I thought the ban ID #643 was an account-specific one. TBH, I am not entirely sure how these UTRS bans are implemented. 2600:1003:B47E:576F:3048:1AB9:76FC:51A1 02:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- I've looked and ban 643 doesnt exist anymore in the system.--TParis (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- That's strange, because today when I tried to file an appeal (for my account) using this [shared] IP address, it still said (even after I cleared my cookies):
Your IP address or username has been banned from using UTRS. The banning administrator specified the following reason: "Abuse/exploitation of UTRS Software". If you contact UTRS admininstrators about this ban, please mention the following ban ID: #643.
@AmandaNP: can you please do a double-check? 158.106.52.10 15:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)- M8, 642 exists and 644 exists. 643 isnt in the system. Is this enwiki or another language? TParis (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- It's not for enwiki, it's for a global lock/block. (Well, in my case, it's a lock.) Do you or AmandaNP have authority over the UTRS system for global (b)locks? 158.106.48.10 16:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Amanda and I are both devs. So we see everything. But only Stewards can action on global locks/blocks. Amanda is a steward, I believe. But this explains why I cannot see the block without going into the database.--TParis (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- So, can you please ask AmandaNP to do something about ban #643? Because, as I recall, it was applied (to the global [b]lock system) when only the enwiki block was in effect, and User talk:AmandaNP is not editable by IP addresses (yes, I can understand why she'd make it so). 158.106.52.10 14:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Something I forgot to ask--are there any other stewards (besides Amanda) who run the UTR System & are responsible for UTRS bans? I'm guessing that, for instance, the stewards Ajraddatz and JJMC89 don't have that kind of authority. (@Ajraddatz and JJMC89: please do let me know me if I'm wrong about you & the UTR System, thank you.) 158.106.52.10 19:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Also, Amanda wrote on Deepfriedokra's talkpage (well before the global lock which I'm trying to appeal):
As requested, I reviewed the reason for the UTRS ban, and the UTRS ban will stand at this time and is not because of onwiki conduct, but as the reason notes abuse of UTRS itself. Should you wish to appeal, you would need to ask for access to your talkpage back or have ArbCom review. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:10, 15 February 2024 UTC
I am not entirely sure, but I think the "abuse of UTRS" ban in question may have been placed sometime between 25 September 2023 (per here) and 13 February 2024.
(The only reason I ever appealed via a sockpuppet account was...well, I think my main account was restricted from making appeals for at least six months starting 8 February 2023. No, I don't recall why this restriction apparently continued after 8 August 2023. And as I said before, I was not yet globally locked.) 158.106.52.10 19:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC) - It sounds like this is an enwiki issue and your appropriate recourse would be with the ArbCom there. Please don't import this dispute to Meta-Wiki. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ajraddatz, my issue isn't with enwiki, it's with the UTR System itself. I believe that ban ID #643 may have been imported from enwiki's UTR System to the global (b)lock system's UTRS sometime between 25 September 2023 and 13 February 2024.
- Remember, as TParis said, ban ID #643 doesn't exist anymore within the system for enwiki. However, ban 643 seems to have been enacted in the global system (which TParis doesn't have permissions for) for some odd reason. Judging from what AmandaNP said [in the green text above], it looks as if this was done sometime in or before February 2024.
My hypothesis is that global UTRS ban 643 was automatically put in place (in the global system) when I did that sockpuppet-appeal on 25 September 2023 (even though that appeal was only for enwiki). Think of how Abuse Filters tend to catch false positives. It was probably because of sockpuppet-appeals that were coming from users who were already globally blocked (and had their main accounts banned from using UTRS) trying sockpuppet-appeals. 158.106.52.10 17:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- I tried to appeal my global lock again today and I still got that "Abuse/exploitation of UTRS Software [...] ban ID: #643" message.
- @AmandaNP, Vermont, Jon Kolbert, Bsadowski1, Xaosflux, Johannnes89, and EPIC: can any of you PLEASE look into the (global? not enWP) database and remove ban 643? Or, at least, explain to me why it was implemented in the first place? I'm getting really impatient about this issue. 158.106.48.10 14:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- If you have a global account lock or global account block, you may file an appeal via Special:Contact/Stewards. Please note, there is currently a lengthy backlog in that area. If this is about a local project block, you will need to follow up directly with that project. — xaosflux Talk 15:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a shorter backlog with UTRS? I'm guessing there is. 158.106.48.10 15:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wait--I'm confused, xaosflux. Doesn't UTRS's appeal system (at https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/public/appeal/account) already have a global (b)lock option? (Under the "What wiki are you blocked on?" dropdown menu, I mean.)
- Anyway, the only other option is English Wikipedia; no other local projects are listed. 158.106.48.10 14:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- If you have a global account lock or global account block, you may file an appeal via Special:Contact/Stewards. Please note, there is currently a lengthy backlog in that area. If this is about a local project block, you will need to follow up directly with that project. — xaosflux Talk 15:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- So, can you please ask AmandaNP to do something about ban #643? Because, as I recall, it was applied (to the global [b]lock system) when only the enwiki block was in effect, and User talk:AmandaNP is not editable by IP addresses (yes, I can understand why she'd make it so). 158.106.52.10 14:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Amanda and I are both devs. So we see everything. But only Stewards can action on global locks/blocks. Amanda is a steward, I believe. But this explains why I cannot see the block without going into the database.--TParis (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's not for enwiki, it's for a global lock/block. (Well, in my case, it's a lock.) Do you or AmandaNP have authority over the UTRS system for global (b)locks? 158.106.48.10 16:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- M8, 642 exists and 644 exists. 643 isnt in the system. Is this enwiki or another language? TParis (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- That's strange, because today when I tried to file an appeal (for my account) using this [shared] IP address, it still said (even after I cleared my cookies):
- I've looked and ban 643 doesnt exist anymore in the system.--TParis (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- For my IP address(es), or for the account Shāntián Tàiláng? The latter is what I meant when I said I couldn't log in because of a global lock (not a global block, so I doubt I'm block-evading). Anyway, I thought the ban ID #643 was an account-specific one. TBH, I am not entirely sure how these UTRS bans are implemented. 2600:1003:B47E:576F:3048:1AB9:76FC:51A1 02:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- It looks to me like someone removed the ban.--TParis (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.