Grants talk:IdeaLab/Whistleblowing policy

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

Did this actually happen?[edit]

Was there a case of someone who reported an admin for misconduct and was then blocked or banned? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This actually happens, because users have no defense against a group of harasser admins. If a user reports admins they will block him, and user have no chance to get justice. Bad admins can block opponents users before they get admins, so their control can keep without stopping. --Luca Polpettini (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mean it's not plausible. I mean can you post me a link to a specific user or block discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't think to a plan, but just to a mindset and intolerance: you can find some examples in this blog, particularly in the Pèter case. --Luca Polpettini (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow. Google Translate is giving me the gist. Did Pèter do whistleblowing, as in revealing corruption or even inefficiency, or was he just blowing off some steam (complaining to make himself feel better)? Also, was that the only thing he did before the admins indeffed him?
Also, you and @Neotarf: should probably talk. Your proposals complement each other. Yours could solve the principal problem with Neotarf's. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:38, 29 June 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]


The proposal is interesting but unfortunately it will not be very useful in practice. The problem is not that people afraid to complain - there are a lot of complain about various project. The problem(s) is that

  • it is generally impossible to review them due to language barrier. This proposal does nothing to address this issue.
  • even if the language barrier is not issue then it is not clear what exactly constitutes abuse? What are the standards of admin behavior? You should take into account that many policies that exists, for instance, in enwiki are not applicable to other projects.
  • even if the previous two issue can be addressed a question arises what these guarantors will do if they find abuse (at least, in their opinion)? They are not a global arbcom, they are not elected by the community and any action that they take will be controversial and if they make an error they will be doomed.

Ruslik (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have some additional consideration. According to the guideline: "We support volunteer participation; participation that is tied to paid work is not eligible for funding." Adjudicating the disputes between users have always been done by volunteers. You propose to replace them with paid staff. so, this proposal appears to ineligible for funding. Ruslik (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It already exists what i mean: I make it only more effective and useful.--Luca Polpettini (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many questions[edit]

Hi there. I don't understand why do you suggest to use a external page (GlobalLeaks) to collect the reports. Or are you planning to implement the software within Wikimedia Labs or Wikipedia? How are going to do this? Have you check policy regarding admin abuse? I am not familiar with this community but I know that for example banned users can go to the Arbitration Committee, what are your thoughts on that? Do you think something similar can work for smaller wikis? Whats the role of Stewards in all of this? There is also a language barrier that we will need to solve firstly in order to help these communities.

How are you planning sustainability after the grant finishes? Who are the experts? And why these experts are going to get paid? How are we going to account the experts? Who and how are going to select reports? How do you count 10k for doing that? Thanks. --Lluis tgn (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not eligible for Project Grants review in round 1 2016[edit]

IEG review.png

This Project Grants proposal is not eligible for review during the current round because the application is incomplete.

We encourage you to further develop your project idea and submit a fully completed proposal in a future round. You can view the schedule of future rounds at the Project Grants Start space.

Questions? Contact us.

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]