Grants talk:IdeaLab/Training for administrators

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Example for illustration[edit]

I'd like to repeat my endorsement, and to illustrate the need for intervention. I think Pine has an excellent grant candidate, and I think the additional ideas of Smallbones and Peter (Southwood) are spot on.

I visited the article of a recently deceased celebrity a couple of weeks ago, and, as is my custom, corrected a minor grammatical error I noticed while reading. I find that this ability to tweak and correct extremely satisfying, and I believe that it is the gateway for vast numbers of new editors. Unfortunately, in this instance, an editor has adopted the article as a pet project, and protects it as a lioness would her cubs. In investigating the edit-history, I found that this particular error had been corrected previously, only to be instantly reverted, as was I. A previous editor or two had gotten crossways with the lioness, and been blocked from editing entirely. The lioness has a protector. I find this behavior less than satisfactory on the part of the territorial editor, and abhorrent, repugnant on the part of the administrator. I went to the talk page of the editor who first corrected this very minor grammatical error, and asked him if he had noticed repeated instances of this behavior. The admin proceeded to castigate ME on MY talk page for disruptive behavior, for violating various policies, for going behind the back of the protective editor, whatever.

To my mind, this is improper use of authority. Such admins we do not need. A very intentional anonymous, supportive note was left on my talk page, but I felt I was being stalked by an administrator! Over a non-controversial grammatical error.

It will be interesting to see if I get further negative responses. I believe there should be a mechanism for reporting misbehavior by administrators. I'm sure it would be abused, as all things are abused from time to time, but administrators can hurt the project in a variety of ways, and repeated negative reports from non-sock different editors should be able to elicit SOME sort of a review of behavior. Without administrators, en.Wikipedia would resemble the wild west. But GOOD administrators are of the essense. Rogue admins we are better off without. Rags (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Rags (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rags, thanks for your comments. I combined a couple of your lines on the main grant page here which I hope is OK with you. --Pine 22:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, this is not for volunteers[edit]

Sorry, but I cannot name even one person who has spoken out openly against harassment and is still in good standing and actively participating at enwiki. Admins are just not qualified for this and they do not want to do it. The WMF should enforce their own terms of service. See also discussion at Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Propose_Wikimedia_Code_of_Conduct_(adapted_from_open_source_Contributor_Covenant)#I_can.27t_agree_with_thisNeotarf (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC) .:Almost nobody likes oversight. The police who police the police are the most unpopular members of the force. If the Foundation can manage the problem using paid staff alone, I'm all for that, but I don't see it happening. If that is a workable soluution, why isn't it already solving the problem? If we want to go in that direction, fine, but we need to DO it. And we definitely need a mechanism for reporting misbehavior. I realize that it would introduce new opportunities for abuse. That is always a danger. It can be circumvented, as other problems have been. Thank you for your time and your concern. Rags (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grants to improve your project[edit]

Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. The deadline for draft submissions is tommorrow. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.

The next open call for Project Grants will be in October 2016. You can also consider applying for a Rapid Grant, if your project does not require a large amount of funding, as applications can be submitted anytime. Feel free to ping me if you need help getting your proposal started. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 22:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead Line[edit]

As a new Wikipedia editor I would like to ask you a question if you are promulgating rdf and rdf a with a deadline tomorrow and the last time this page was modified was July of last year would this be considered fake news?

my name is John and I go by coach I would like to apply for a grant but I don't want to do it unless somebody reaches out to me first every time I tried to edit any page on this website I get 5 or 6 people reversing my edits I don't want my edits reversed I just want to apply for a grant.

COACH ZARLINO (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]