Grants talk:Project/Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton/Pilot project with Observatório de Aves

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

Wikidata[edit]

The summary mentions as "first step" Wikidata, but from the description it's not entirely clear how this happens. --Jura1 (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jura1,
Thanks for your attention.
You are right, and tried to make it more clear : [1]
Do you have any suggestions? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 19:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I see. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:WikiProject_Birds/lists/missing_images_at_Wikidata has the full list of bird species without images at Wikidata. The same can obviously also be queried directly. Image additions at Wikidata are always welcome. --Jura1 (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Presence at Observatorio's events[edit]

Hi Rodrigo, very interesting project!

However, I find it a bit odd that you'll be working full time on the project but will only commit to organise a Wikimedia workshop in one of the "Passarinhar" meetings. Will you be taking part in most of these meetings for the duration of the project? If not, why? And if yes, why not commit to an effort to include at least an optional activity around Wikimedia on those meetings you take part in? At first glance I thought this would be one of the main goals of the grant: to attempt to develop some sort of mutually beneficial activity through which Wikimedia could become an integral part of the workflow of Passarinhar.

I'm not saying that digitization of existing material, plus developing a workflow within Observatório to keep it going after the project ends, is not enough as a main goal in itself. But you being on the project full time, and with the opportunity and resources essentially already there, it would seem natural to try to to go for that as well. Even if not as a main goal, at least as a secondary goal.

Cheers, Solstag (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Solstag, thanks for the feedback
"And if yes, why not commit to an effort to include at least an optional activity around Wikimedia on those meetings you take part in?"
Like some kind of fix activity at the end of Passarinhar?
I can talk with them.
The problem is that in a regular Passarinhar at the end of the data collection (3 hours or more of walk) they have a breakfast, birds watched count, and a lecture or a workshop, and in many times they are extensive. So this is already a 5-7 hours activity, it can be very tiring for the participants.
That's why I didn't want to stablish a fix activity at the end, I do not know how much of their energy will remain for them listen to me carefully. But I'll talk to Observatório.
And I include "at least one" because until the end of the project they only will organize 4 Passarinhars.
Furthermore we also would have a lot other activities that includes workshops, edit-a-thon, photo walks and courses, only in 2 months of the project I didn't include a Wikimedia workshops, a priori, I left a room to include more activities and I see more participation from their volunteers than our.
.
But do you have any suggestions for this activity at the end?
Being fix, it has a certain periodicity, so we could take advantage of this periodicity, and make something a little bit different, I do not know, develop an activity slightly longer, something that could happen throughout the whole project... Any idea?
Thank you again.
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey R.T.Argenton. You're right, it doesn't need to be a long form activity. But for the duration of the project I think you should make it explicit that you commit to being present during all Passarinhar meetings, talk to the participants and organizers to find interesting ways to include Wikimedia projects in their activities and pipelines, and eventually go on to put that in action in at least two meetings. What do you think? Solstag (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal not eligible[edit]

Dear R.T.Argenton,

This proposal for a Project Grant is not eligible for review. Per our guidelines and criteria, “Grantees must be in good community- and legal- standing (not currently blocked or banned, involved in allegations of unethical financial behavior, etc)” and “must adhere to the Friendly space expectations.” Unfortunately, a variety of evidence supports the conclusion that you do not meet this criterion, including:

  • an indefinite block on br.wikimedia.org
  • A pattern of uncivil and at times attacking language during onwiki disputes
  • Making reference to another user’s personal information after the user requested that you refrain

Please note that we hold our prospective and current grantees to a higher behavioral standard than we hold other Wikimedian volunteers. There are limited grants funds available to support the Wikimedia movement. As such, we consider it a ‘’’minimum’’’ threshold for grant applicants to refrain from harassment in order to be eligible for funding. In our review process, we prioritize applicants who go well beyond this and proactively model the expectations of the Friendly Space policy. Ideally, we would like our grantees to serve as role models for civil behavior.

Should you wish to be eligible for future funding, I urge you to carefully consider both the words and the tone you use, especially during conflicts. If you would like further feedback about this, you are welcome to reach out to me.

Warm regards,

--Marti (WMF) (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


Dear Marti (WMF), I know some of Rodrigo's situation and was about to support this proposal, perhaps because I know it better than you do, perhaps not. So, can you please provide the dates and sources related to the incidents you list? I am under the impression that said behavior halted a while back and am not aware of any recent issue, which makes this interdiction seem thoroughly unfair, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Abraços, Solstag (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Solstag, thank you for this feedback. A team of four Program Officers consulted on this decision, reviewing a range of incidents over the course of the last three years, including incidents in 2018. It is the pattern that concerns us more than any specific incident. Because of the sensitivity of Friendly Space concerns, I am not going to share specific dates and sources publicly at this time, but we are certainly available for follow-up with R.T.Argenton. Warm regards, --Marti (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Marti,
The block at Wikimedia Brasil was an one volunteer initiative, it's an edit from 2014 and the reason of the block is absurd: [2], but accepted because it's a "chapter" wiki, they can block anyone by any reason.
Plus, this wiki is not in use any more: [3], this is the reason why I do not requested the unblock.
And I've being doing activities as a independent volunteer with this user group, as you well know.
So why this is an issue?
Making reference to another user’s personal information after the user requested that you refrain
I never did that, pleas send me by email what is the point that you are referring to. If you are talking about the issue around 15 oct 2014, you are making a mistake, we can discuss this in private. And again: 2014.
"incidents in 2018"
What incidents in 2018?
I just had an overreaction of one specific volunteer at Wikimedia Commons and the community didn't had to take any actions - only a small wikidrama that we all have to handle daily bases, unfortunately...
Any one can open an "user problem" thread, this should not be taking into consideration.
So pleas, email me what are this points, because I'm confused, you are saying that you evaluated the last three years, and two topics are from 2014, and they are in a very grey area.
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 11:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
PS:Sorry the delay, this wiki do not send me notifications by email, and this account is exclusive used here.
.
Just to know, is this a final decision? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 11:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, I am happy to respond by email if that is your preference. However, I wonder if it might be better to discuss this in a call so you can ask questions and provide input in dialogue? Let me know which you prefer. I would be happy to set up a call if you like. I am going to reach out to you by email since I think that will be an easier medium for scheduling if we go that route. --Marti (WMF) (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)