User talk:I JethroBT (WMF)

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


Contents

How can we improve Wikimedia grants to support you better? (test)[edit]

My apologies for posting this message in English. Please help translate it if you can.

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback about how we can reimagine Wikimedia Foundation grants, to better support people and ideas in your Wikimedia project. Ways to participate:

Feedback is welcome in any language.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 22:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


The messgae failed on he.wikisource, it is full of red links. Nahum (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The message failed everywhere except Meta. The links are all internal links to Meta pages. --Yair rand (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Nahum and Yair rand: We've assembled a small team to fix these links, so they should be ready soon. Thanks for letting me know, I'll be more careful with syntax from here on out. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick! Thanks a lot for fixing it so fast. Nahum (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added relevant info in guidelines since it's not the very first time when it happened.
Danny B. 00:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI: On some sites, the message is being delivered again and again with redlinks. I found b:cs:, n:cs:, q:sk: ATM. Did you run it accidentally twice by any chance or were those targets twice on the list?
Danny B. 01:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Danny B.: Yeah, I also noticed these duplicates and others; we have been removing them. The MassMessage was only sent once, so I suspected there may be duplicate entries in the list, but checking through the target list, I don't see any duplicates for cs.wikinews, cs.wikibooks, or sk.wikiquote. Something may be wrong with the MassMessage system; it delivered the same message two hours apart when I only sent it once: ([1], [2]). I'm stumped for now, but I'll be looking into this before this list gets used again. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Grantmaking survey[edit]

Hi Chris; some comments.

  • Roles: tick "Other (specify)", and there's nowhere to specify.
  • ID with PEG: can't click on two tabs ...
  • Satisfaction with resources: the issue "Suggestions from grants committee members during application review" should include "and community reviewers" in its wording, rather than being exclusionary.
  • Importance of resources: again, community reviewers are excluded. Why?
  • Reimagining grants: you might have indicated what the current structure is so that respondents can more easily see what structural change is being proposed—or given a brief summary of the proposed change from old to new.

Pinging User:Wolliff_(WMF)

Tony (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1: Thanks for these comments on the survey, Tony. I've alerted EGalvez (WMF) to them so they can be fixed. I'm working on seeing what we can do about your additions to the survey and the idea page, so stay tuned. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Tony1: I've fixed the "other" response. For PEG, you are only supposed to mark one option, based on which you identify the most. Thanks so much for the tips! --Chedasaurus (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Tony1: The replyto template above was malformed; just alerting you to Ed's response. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Tony1: Hey Tony. We have received many responses to the survey already, but, there are related questions on the survey that ask participants to assess the statement, I receive useful/timely feedback about my grant proposals, which would include community feedback. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
That is not at all the point. Your wording is exclusionary—somehow treating GAC members as of different status to community reviewers. If you want to persist with that, I'm going to take it up in other forums. Tony (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Tony. Thanks again for your comments the survey. I see your point about wanting to make sure we are valuing and including community review, and I agree it's important. Do you also have thoughts about how we can include more about that in the idea itself?
Regarding the survey, those questions are about the types of resources WMF is already providing. There are a number of possible resources that could be included on the list that we aren't providing yet and that might be very important, but right now we needed to prioritize getting a better understanding of the resources we are already investing in. Since we put resources (e.g. staff time) into supporting committee review, we have included it on the list. This isn't because we value other types of community participation less than committee review, but because we haven't yet found a way to effectively put resources into supporting that. I can see why it would be important to clarify that if we run a similar survey in the future. I agree it's important to value different types of participation in the grants process in the context of a consultation like this, and I'm sorry if it felt like we weren't valuing those contributions highly enough!
We'd be ver interested in hearing your ideas about how we can better support community review, especially as part of the visioning discussion. There's a question included there that's specifically about how to make community review better.
Best, Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 16:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Translate IEG Mass Message 2015-2[edit]

Hi, I translated the message into Spanish, but I've some doubts about the language and expressions that I've used... please, don't use it before a "informal review" from other Spanish speaker Regards Superzerocool (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Reapply[edit]

Can I reapply my project [3]? Alphama (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Alphama: Of course! But I would suggest that you try to address some of the concerns brought up by the committee, particularly related to reaching out to the communities you wish to help out with the project and initiating discussions, and trying to alleviate concerns surrounding risks (e.g. the idea of implementing unnecessary categories on projects was discussed). If you'd like to sit down to talk about your proposal, let me know. We can arrange a chat over Google Hangout, IRC, or wherever is convenient for you. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank. I created a new proposal here Grants:IEG/Semi-automatically generate Categories for Vietnamese Wikipedia. Alphama (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Alphama: Thanks! I've changed a few parameters to make sure it is included in the current round for review, but please feel free to make additional changes over the next week. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Alphama (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Visual messages[edit]

IdeaLab fire.svg

Taking a cue from HeatherW, I've boldly added some graphics to your proposed talk page notices.

I found this particular image a bit amusing. I guess there are fire hazards in IdeaLab. Maybe this is what happens when Rory edits some of Jmorgan's carefully designed Lua templates. --Pine 07:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Unblocking my Account[edit]

Hello User:I_JethroBT_(WMF),

At the moment, I have no plans of getting my account unblocked. I did copyvio violations, and I accept the punishment. As long as the banishment wasn't for a year or so, rather indefinitely, I find no interest in contesting for unblocking, as whoever did the blocking don't necessarily need copyvio-hungry contributors like myself on the platform. I am happy contributing to other project websites of the WMF. Unless I am told specifically where not being able to contribute to wikipedia is going to be a difficulty with our project, I see no way. And I don't see that blocking to affect my reputation in any way whatsoever, unless someone thinks it does. Thanks for the heads up! --Nkansahrexford (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail from flixtey@gmail.com and subject is "Urgent Assistance (Open call for IEG)"Flixtey (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

the bot repeats himself[edit]

hi, the bot has delivered last message twice to https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipeedia_arutelu:Saatkond#Reimagining_WMF_grants_report_2 --WikedKentaur (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@WikedKentaur: I used the list over at Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery, which should be up-to-date, but let me check into it to see why this occurred. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Grants:IEG/WikiProject Siriono‎ translation[edit]

Hello, I added other tags to translate on Grants:IEG/WikiProject Siriono‎. Could you validate them? Thank you in advance. Pamputt (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

So this bit is just fine, is it?[edit]

"You comment reflect a blatant lack of empathy and inherent disrespect towards the particular situation of contributors such as this grant requester, we do not all live in suburbia with unlimited access to computers and broadband highspeed communications ... and allow me to wonder (comment redacted) that you may speak with a royal "WE" as in the phrase "things we will fund " because a)you don't fund anything , neither do I, so there is no such thing as WE unless you offer to personally pay for this grant request, an the you can say "things I will fund" b) you represent only yourself here Tony , and so do I, c) a little bit of self-relativation on your part would become you and last but not least : we're talking about 800 USD. shame on you Tony"

If that's your interpretation of "friendly space", you should resign your position. Tony (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1: I've redacted some additional material clearly not appropriate for a page intended to be about the proposal. I've also had a chance to talk with DerekvG about their behavior as well. Please be more mindful of how you engage with applicants and other reviewers on proposal talk pages. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
"Please be more mindful of how you engage with applicants and other reviewers on proposal talk pages." If one of your GAC members is abusive towards me, I reserve the right to defend myself, and will do so in the future if I need to. Exactly what do you mean by how I engage with applicants on talkpages??? Tony (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tony1: There is a difference between defending your views and attacking others. Calling other people "pot-heads" and the like in the context of a proposal review, or in general, is unacceptable. I agree the initial response to your comment was inappropriate and disproportionate and I've made this clear to Derek. Your initial question to the applicant about funding for equipment and training were productive and I'm glad you asked them, but once you get a response, it's not helpful to generally admonish the applicant and tell them they should have known to include that information initially. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I am deeply hostile to your accusation. Get your own house (GAC) in order rather than throwing stones at me. I will suggest that some things might have been included in an application if that is my judgement, and will not take instruction from you on that count. I note your language, which clearly reveals an agenda: one person's text, which started this whole unpleasant episode, is "inappropriate and disproportionate"; but my text was "unacceptable". I see where your bias lies, and will take it to WMF board members if we can't sort this out. I don't give my time gratis to be abused.

While we're at it, may I have your assurance that I have never been libelled on GAC's secret mailing list (which you run and hold responsibility for); I believe it was started some time last year at the behest of GAC members, against the advice of one grantmaking staff member. Tony (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ladybesttruthful

Thank you for your leaving message. I'm sorry that I really don't understand about IdeaLab campaigns.

Yours sincerely,
--Ladybesttruthful (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I'm unsure if my idea on suppressing long discussions should be submitted :P what do you think? I think at least my community (esp. Wikipedia.pt) should cut off extense discussions in order to save admins and bureaucrats from spending too much time reading a lot of text. Does this ok in every other communities? Dianakc (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dianakc: Hey Diana, thanks for getting in touch with me. Being an admin on en.wiki, I know the exhaustion of having to read through walls of text, and that it's better if one can express themselves in fewer words when possible. I suspect this issue has come up in other communities other than pt.wiki and en.wiki. I think it's a great idea, and I'm glad you've developed it in IdeaLab. However, it does point to a somewhat specific issue rather than a theme for an entire IdeaLab campaign. You might consider submitting something broader that would include this idea, like "Efforts to improve communication between project contributors," or something along those lines. In the meantime, I would recommend pitching your idea to relevant spaces on pt.wikipedia (e.g. this may be a good place to start to see if your local community can offer feedback and/or support it. Thanks again for your participation. Take care, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi, thank you for your kind message. I'm sorry for answering so late, but I've just seen it. It would be very interisting to partecipate to the consultation for the future IdeaLab campaigns. It would be great to be of any help with ideas or proposals. I'll think about it. Many thanks. --Kenzia (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Rosetta barnstar[edit]

Rosetta barnstar

Thanks for your help with translations. --Pine 18:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Pine: Woo, my first one! Thanks a bunch. :) I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Pine: By the way, I also wanted to mention that I couldn't find a parameter in either the bar nor in Special:NotifyTranslators to allow for a translation to Odia. The project is smaller, so there may be relatively few people active in translation work there. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I will notify the person who has volunteered to translate for Odia. Thanks. --Pine 17:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Language[edit]

I have now opted out of receiveing messages from Idealab, but still want to give you feedback on language. For me, being fluent in English, but being a non native English speaking person, this message is impossible to understand - "Inspire Campaign on content curation & review". I do not understand what an Inspire campaign mean, it sounds to me like an adertisment slogan (if you mean an Idealab campaign, why not write so?). Curation I definitly do not understand what it refers to and review is a must vague word for me. Does it refer to patrolling (which I do for all (new) edits 24/7 on svwp) why not write so? If you want particpation from other communities then enwp, I would suggest you think more of what wording you use.Yger (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Yger: Thanks for the feedback, I acknowledge the confusion with the header of the MassMessage. I prepared this page to answer some questions you have above. I had considered going with IdeaLab campaign, but since the last Inspire campaign on the gender gap was fairly successful, I decided to stick with the name because some would recognize it. It's tough to find another word for curation (it refers to organizing content, connecting content together, making content findable, identifying gaps in project content, etc). So it's tough to narrow it down to one of these terms. As for review, this was intended to be purposefully broad so as to include work like patrolling, copyediting, identifying copyright violations, etc. Also, in terms of gathering participation outside of English projects, I have requested translations of messaging material, and will be contacting local projects using their language when possible. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 07:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Receiver list for Inspire campaign[edit]

Regarding this edit: is it possible for you to modify your mailing list so that any messages are delivered to the WikiProject Editor Retention talk page? Thanks! On another note, the mailing list says it is for notifications "regarding the Reimagining WMF grants idea"; however the notification that was sent out was for the Inspire campaign. Can the mailing list text be updated appropriately? Isaacl (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Thanks, I've fixed the issue with the mailing list description in addition to the target for the Editor Retention Project. My apologies for the disruption! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hi, last year I tried to participate to the Inspire campaign about the gender gap in Wikipedia. I prepared a grant proposal draft on this point, but I didn't submit it. I'm not very skilled in using Wikipedia, but it would be fantastic for me if I could give a contribution in this very important field. Could you please give a look at my grant proposal draft? It would be very important for me to have your advise. I wonder if I can submit it for approval. Could you please help me? Many thanks --Kenzia (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Kenzia, thanks for getting a draft of your proposal started, and I completely understand that contributing to Wikipedia can be difficult sometimes. Your focus on accurately representing the contributions of women in article content is a great idea. Your proposal is off to good start, but I think you'll need to work on providing more detail in each of the sections. For instance:
  • What kind of analysis of the Italian Wikipedia are you considering? How long do you expect the analysis to take?
  • Where do you think some good places will be to present proposals on this topic to other editors?
  • Have you considered reaching out to editors on the Italian Wikipedia or other projects to let them know about your idea?
I'd also consider checking over these proposals as examples of the kind of detail that has gone into previously funded proposals:
If you'd like to chat over Skype or Google Hangouts with me or Mjohnson (WMF) (the program officer for Individual Engagement Grants) about your idea or about IEGs, let me know! We'd be happy to chat. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your interisting answer. I'll think about your suggestions. What you point out are essential questions and I'll try to find answers for each of them. Thank you also for the links to other similar projects, that I'm going to study carefully. I have an historical and sociological background because of my studies in history and political sciences. Your's and Mjohnson's help will be really important for carrying on my project. I must confess that I'm not on skype or Google Hangouts. Is that a problem? Could we communicate through emails? Many thanks --Kenzia (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have tried to improve the draft of my project following your suggestions. It would be wonderful to participate to the Google Hangout of the 5th of april. I've subscribed, for me it is the first time, I hope to be able to do that. :) If you have any other advise or suggestion, it would be very helpful for me. Thank you very much --Kenzia (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kenzia, thanks for your effort in your proposal. It's great to hear you'll be joining us on April 5th! You are absolutely welcome to e-mail us if you prefer. I can be reached at cschilling-at-wikimedia.org. As for feedback, I'll review your proposal over this weekend and provide feedback to you by Monday. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Opt out of Community Resources mass messages on personal talk pages?[edit]

Hi Jethro, do you know if there is any way to opt out from receiving mass-messages on my personal talk page on User_talk:Malyacko (and generic "MediaWiki message delivery left you a message on Meta" email notifications)? Thanks, --Malyacko (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Malyacko: Good question. (And sorry Andre, I didn't realize this was your account!) According to mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage#Opting out, it looks like you can add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page for meta to stop receiving stuff sent using Special:MassMessage. For other Wikimedia projects, there may be a localized version with a different name (e.g. for en.wiki, it's the same, but for de.wiki, the category is de:Kategorie:Wikipedia:Keine_Massennachrichten). I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Quality VS References[edit]

Concerning: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Quality_VS_References The idea I have presented really require the contribution of somebody familiar with database and the likes, to make the required calculations and display. I do not have such qualifications, and thus I can not make a diligent use of any grant I could get to realize that idea.

My personal limitations as to the feasibility of this approach may also raise some questions and doubt as to the interest of the idea itself. If anybody want to provide some insights about the "assessment of quality", and especially as related to references quoted in the articles, I may further contribute to advance the question in terms of "user deeply interested and concerned." I want to promote something rational, logical...; that is why I mentioned "testing" the approach by proceeding to a comparison with currently used standard of quality, which include the "good star, advanced, etc.", for in my view on of the drawback is subjectivity....

If qualified people find interest in my proposals, they can also proceed and make it theirs. My intuition is that there is something to dig about quality and references... AndWater (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@AndWater: That's fine-- we do get a lot of ideas from folks with a conceptual idea in mind, but do not have the technical skills to put them into action. If you'd like, I can recommend places where you can reach out to folks who do have those skills to see whether they are interested in implementing your idea. Let me know if you're interested! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@I JethroBT: The concept now exists. I might (later) make a few calculations, for instance by counting (manually) the number of references in a sample of articles from each of the categories, "beginning", "good start", "advanced", etc., and proceed to a statistical comparison between theses samples as to the numbers of bytes of information contained. If the "preliminary" results are statistically significant, then it will be more clearly worth investigate further the concept. If I find this evidence, I will contact you with enthusiasm to communicate with other people that might be also interested. I thank you Sir, & Have a G'Day! AndWater (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Typo on IEG comments[edit]

Hi, I JethroBT (WMF). Re: Women are Everywhere. Is this a typo:

If you want, you can a table similar to the one

Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Thanks, missed that verb there.  :P I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
You can can a tomato but you can not can a can can dancer. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

IEG: AutoresAR[edit]

Hi IJethroBT, thanks for your comments. Both Zeroth and I are aware that we need to change the status, it's just that it's still a draft. Is it really possible to have an individual session? I'd really appreciate any input on the proposal, but I know we're a little bit tight on the deadline. --Scanno (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Scanno: Sure thing. Is there a good time today or tomorrow that works for you? I am able to keep my schedule flexible for individuals seeking grants, and am available on short notice. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm in Argentina. Tomorrow morning is a good time for me, but I don't know if it suits for you. I'm also flexible. --Scanno (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Scanno: I should be available. I'll follow-up by e-mail. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

IEG grant submission[edit]

Hi Jethro, I have submitted an IEG yesterday but want to know if I can still make some changes as some parameters are not yet known, and I have not advised yet our potential volunteers on the project (we have one workshop today and will have 6 other from now to June). Is there another period during the year where we can submit an IEG? Thanks. --Nattes à chat (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nattes à chat: Thanks for checking in! You're referring to Grants:IEG/Natacha Rault, correct? If you'd like to hold off on applying to develop the proposal further, that's perfectly fine. The next opportunity to apply will actually be with a new grants program called Project Grants, which will replace IEG. Briefly, Project Grants will work basically the same as IEG applications, except that 1) the grant period is extended to 12 months (instead of six), 2) up to $100,000 USD can be requested (instead of $30,000), and 3) Project Grant open calls will be held quarterly (instead of twice a year). I believe that the Open Call for Project Grants will begin in early June, but let me ping our program officer Mjohnson (WMF) to confirm. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, yes, that might prove handy as I am still completing the Lets' Fill the Gender Gap project. The next step is to try to retain the people we taught contributing to to have them meet inn friendly and safe spaces, where there is no online harassment. --Nattes à chat (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Advice for grant application - sw.wikipedia[edit]

Hi, I would like to take up your kind offer to give advice. I am thinking about doing a workshop in autumn for Swahili wikipedia which basically would be a followup / partial rerun of this project. Swahili wikipedia is after Afrikaans the second African language wikipedia (by quality - by quantity mg is far ahead thru lots of lists and bot-stuff, cf this 2014 evaluation). Most of this has been built by a team of 5 editors (and meanwhile also the stewards, bureaucrats..) over the years who are mostly not native speakers. We met the first time for a student workshop last year in Tanzania. I would like to continue with 2-3 school workshops plus some visits to make school / college contacts for future workshops this coming October. For this i have to come to Tanzania from Germany where I will be based from summer 2016 (presently still Iran) and do some travel in Tanzania, possibly also Kenya (to contact schools, teachers for future projects). The workshops I can do with Riccardo of our team who is based in Morogoro and is in charge of 2 schools. Cost for workshops as such are very low in TZ, mainly a meal for participants (some schools donate that), a standby generator which has to be hired for reliable electricity supply, a bit for wikipedia t-shirts as motivating giveaways.. Mostly it is cost for travel (Germany-Tanzania 600-800 USD, maybe 200 - 400 for travel in the country, not much on hotels ... ).

So do I understand the new guidelines (like here) correct that I should apply separately for travel and workshop as such? or can it go into one budget as before? Or should I go for the small projects format which I saw recently? I appreciate very much your advice. (if possible pls answer to my sw.wikipedia page)

Kipala (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Campaign feedback[edit]

Ciao Jethro,

You ask feedback on a survey or its results? No way! Be happy I participated. Meta-feedback you better ask others, not me. Thank you and you're welcome!  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  12:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC) (Haarlem N-H, Netherlands)
@KlaasZ4usV: That's OK, you don't need to take the survey. I indeed am very grateful that you were able to participate during the campaign. Thanks for volunteering your time. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Any time :-) I just filled out the survey about the CEO. I'm available!  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  07:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Does this edit meaning my idea has been disqualified from the Inspire Campaign harassment proposal, or will it still be considered a part of the Inspire Campaign? TomStar81 (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It's separate from the campaign. The campaign is intended to be a space for ideas that attempt to address harassment in some way. My understanding of your idea is that we shouldn't be doing that at all, because you feel it is a waste of time. I understand where you're coming from. I'm fine with people who have those sentiments (though I obviously disagree with them), and I expect you are not the only person to feel that way, but creating an idea within the campaign that is fundamentally inconsistent with the campaign's aims is not appropriate. I've moved the idea into IdeaLab general, but the best place to discuss these kinds of meta-level matters about the campaign is here. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Can it be deleted? I think since its now a waste of electrons it should be deleted, but since I am out of my element here I'll leave that determination to you. TomStar81 (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I can, and while I have administrative rights at the moment (to edit some protected pages related to IdeaLab), I'd rather leave this up to another admin on meta. I'll leave a note saying that you've requested this specifically here. Thanks for your thoughts; I'm not promising miracles with this campaign, but I do hold hope we can do some meaningful work to deal with disruptive behavior stemming from harassment. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry for having wasted everyone's time, it seems every time I contribute to one of these things I'm locked out for making foolish and/or irresponsible suggestions. I'd be lying if I said it didn't upset me, but I digress. By way of atonement for having acted out of turn, I'll refrain from replying to anything here so as not to stir the pot among the suggestion pool you get; after all, no one likes a disruptive editor. TomStar81 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
No, Tom, your idea isn't a terrible one. It just doesn't fit into the "Safe space we must do something" narrative that is that proposal. You're not foolish, you're mature. The only foolish thing you've done is to believe that you'd be taken seriously and respectfully by the crowd that thinks an "ignore button" is the solution. They've hit the ignore button on you.--TParis (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what the page contained, but most of the proposals I see are not about harassment in any way; should they be deleted/moved/closed too? It would help to tell people that this space is not meant to reiterate eternal discussion on perennial proposals. Nemo 15:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Opposed[edit]

You're giving the impression that the proposal has unanimous support - and all proposals for that matter. How about I propose we just format all WMF hard drives to prevent harassment? That'd solve the problem too and it'd get unanimous support. Really, "safe spaces" are trash bins of terrible ideas. And the ignore button flies in the face of collaboration.--TParis (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Ajr has demonstrated how your premise is a result of confirmation bias and how your process is engaging in experimenter bias. You're getting the results you want and anticipate because you're selectively removing the results that appear to you to be outliers.--TParis (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi TParis. Following up on a few comments here:
I'd like to point out that Ajr has demonstrated how your premise is a result of confirmation bias and how your process is engaging in experimenter bias. You're getting the results you want and anticipate because you're selectively removing the results that appear to you to be outliers.
  • If I'm being accused of maintaining a space where folks can productively offer and work together on ideas on how to curb or address harassment, that is a bias I am OK with owning. People who offer sentiments premised on things like, "harassment isn't a problem," "we should do nothing," "this is a waste of time," or "doing anything about harassment is too dangerous and needs to stop" are free to feel that way, but this campaign is not the platform by which to express those sentiments. The effect of elevating these ideas in the context of this campaign is that they stifle participation and creativity in this space, and I'm unwilling to tolerate that. Those sentiments also come off as somewhat pointy.
You're giving the impression that the proposal has unanimous support - and all proposals for that matter. How about I propose we just format all WMF hard drives to prevent harassment? That'd solve the problem too and it'd get unanimous support.
  • The sarcastic idea isn't necessary, Tom, and it feels disrespectful. I disagree that moving criticism and discussions to the discussion page creates any substantive issues regarding whether the idea actually proceeds forward. Talk pages have long been used to express and engage with more substantive criticism. Idea creators ought to have a chance to engage in that discussion further and make changes to their proposal. Furthermore, if any of these idea creators go to apply for a WMF grant, funds are not awarded on the basis of the # of endorsements, and the reviewing committees for these grants evaluate talk page feedback, whether positive or negative, very closely.
  • I agree that with any new system to address harassment, there is the possibility the system may manipulated to restrict participation for reasons other than being harassed. I respect that people feel very strongly about this concern, and acknowledge they have observed cases where folks have been being manipulative in this way. I have, too. People with this perspective should also recognize that 1) participation is restricted for people who experience harassment, 2) we permit this behavior and its consequences to persist and possibly worsen when we do nothing, and 3) these cases are much more common than instances of people gaming the system. In this campaign, we can talk about how to handle issues of gaming the system and creating non-collaborative environments in the context of these proposals-- constructively. Those conversations can continue whenever some (if any) of these ideas go on to become grant proposals; we can even test ideas on a small scale beforehand to confirm or refute some of these concerns and whether attempts to mitigate them are effective or not. And yes, the ignore button does have some conceptual/logistical issues (I plan to write some of those concerns on their talk page when I am able). I fully expect many of these discussions will be hard. I don't think every single idea that's been submitted will work out, but I think there is value in exploring and experimenting with them in good faith where possible. This campaign is about building ideas collaboratively, not to write off ideas that are being drafted and burying them before they've had a chance to see the light of day.
I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, then, there is no point to discussion. You're going to push through with the "we must do something" mindset and you're going to crash hard just like VisualEditor and MediaViewer did and we'll once again have a discussion about how the WMF never listened. I've supported you for years because you've been of sound mind. But this feels a lot like a COI. You're pushing this idea because it supports your paycheck.
"can productively offer and work together" - That's not the space you've provided. That's only the image of it that you're capable of seeing at this point. The real space you've provided is an echo chamber of terrible ideas where you bury opposition. That's absolutely the worst kind of "productivity" imaginable and is, once again, par for the course with the WMF. You have folks cheering each other on over an "ignore" button that any one could tell you has a snowballs chance of making it on the English Wikipedia. It's not "abuse" that I think the ignore button would face, it's the exact kind of behavior that is happening right here, right now. 'Ignore those who don't cheer me on.'
There is nothing that better demonstrates my point than the fact that you bury opposition on the talk page to make it less visible. The only practical effect of that is to skew the results. You happily support proudly displaying endorsements, but you have absolutely no idea how many people have read it and declined to endorse it.
What I mean to say is, your project is going to give you data worth squat because you tampered with the results. I hope the WMF knows they are paying you for useless data.--TParis (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@TParis: This campaign is happening because it's one of many ideas for campaigns that the community requested. Because I took the time to ask. Because we all know how much the community hates WMF-led initiatives that have zero buy-in from actual editors. I got tired of seeing unsupported initiatives from the WMF as much as anyone else did as a volunteer, and because of that, I would never impose a campaign that I didn't feel like had some degree of support from editors. You could have asked me why we decided on this campaign if you didn't know.
It doesn't look like we're going to agree on the impact of moving criticisms of ideas to the talk page, and the rhetoric about echo chambers and burying opposition is unconvincing: idea creators and teams involved with an idea will always need to address concerns and feedback they receive if they want their idea to progress in any meaningful way. And they still need to write a coherent proposal-- they can't just ride on endorsements. With that said, too many times have I observed idea creators be bogged down by people who can't give criticism in a constructive manner that assumes good faith, instead preferring to blatantly disparage and effectively discourage efforts to build an idea at all. I have very little sympathy for people who choose to engage this way, and they reinforce the notion that critical feedback is better handled on the talk page rather than the project page.
The data I collect and report on regarding Inspire campaigns has nothing to do with the number of endorsements / concerns garnered for particular ideas. The main goal of Inspire Campaigns is not to collect data, but to encourage collaborative idea development from contributors on issues that they think could use some attention. For ideas that need funding, we encourage folks to consider applying for grants offered by their local chapter and the WMF. For ideas that don't need funding, we encourage editors to bring those ideas back to their local projects to gauge consensus there.
And you know, I'm disappointed that you've decided to make needlessly personal remarks in accusing me of running this campaign for the money, and that I apparently no longer have a sound mind. I will always have considerable respect for you, Tom, but neither of these assertions are true, and I hope you'll reconsider what you've said about me. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Rhetoric? You don't think it's going to affect the responses that you get when you have a page full of supporters and no doubters? You don't think that a doubter, after reading a proposal, will see that they're the only opposition and would rather move on than voice their concerns? You're trying to create a safe space for the proposers but you're alienating the doubters. That's an aggressive move against people who see flaws in some of these ideas. And you don't think that your behavior as the lab coordinator will affect the results you get? Well I think there is going to be more effort on your part trying to bail water from sinking ships than it'll take on my part. If you're willing to put in that kind of an effort to see silly ideas not be called silly, then so be it. I'm disappointed that your standing so firm on this and cannot see its pitfalls, but I imagine you'll know them well after your project. Good luck. I'm sorry for suggesting that your motivation is money - that wasn't polite.--TParis (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I found the first person who changed their mind as result of a discussion (an opposing viewpoint). People can grow! Nemo 16:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Another small issue with Rapid Grant template[edit]

The pop-up form for Rapid Grant has a section labeled "Impact" and one labeled "Resources". However, once you Save the edits, the script shows up on the wiki page as an "Impact" section, and another "Impact" section (rather than "Resources"). Just thought you could quickly fix that, since you were able to adroitly handle the "Join" problem earlier. (And thank you for that!) - Thekohser (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, the Rapid Grant template seems to remove the "image" from the sidebar. - Thekohser (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Thekohser: Thanks, Gregory. The issue with the section headers is good to go-- I tested it out just now and the Resources header appears as it should now. I'll look into the image issue later tonight or this weekend-- this is probably happening because I the Rapid Grants content is largely based off the Project & Event Grants template for the Probox (that also did without an image) with some content and cosmetic changes. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to keep piling things on your desk, but just wanted you to be aware of this additional possible problem with the Rapid Grant template. Do you think it causes the exclusion from assembled lists of Ideas? - Thekohser (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Just when I thought to say thanks ...[edit]

to you, @I JethroBT (WMF): for organizing the critique on my suggestion by moving it to the talk page, you found it appropriate to confirm the intention of Patrick Earley (WMF). In case you care, you may look up my argumentation against demoting my contribution from the leaderboard to oblivion on his talk page. For the time being, I am not aware of any reasonable argumentation justifying this action by anything but the absolute power of the bureaucratic hierarchy, of which I had a (documented) presentiment, and which does not seem to get based any time soon on such an argumentation, and so simply

  • I appeal to you in the name of the characteristics of a wiki to reinstate my contribution to the intended place.

I do neither expect my arguments to be weighted, nor my plea to be granted, so I take it for sure that I won't bother WM with further contributions. What a success. Purgy (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Division of effort[edit]

I was hoping that you would be able to respond at Grants talk:IdeaLab/Inspire#Division of effort. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Perhaps I was too tentative, since you seem reluctant to do so. I think this is an issue that it is important for you to address. Please do so as soon as you have time to do so. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

RFH[edit]

Hello, I pinged you in a section there. Please take a look. Also, I do apologize for the revert notification; that was unintentional, and I was just checking to see if you were around when I accidentally pressed one of those silly rollback links.

Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: Don't worry about the revert-- I've done that before accidentally. I have been doing my best to follow the discussion around where criticism / opposition / general feedback is best placed on Idealab projects, and the concerns of the actions I and others have taken around that. It's been a challenging week for me, and I haven't been able to dedicate as much of my time to this campaign as I would have liked this week. I'll be following up today. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign topic[edit]

I have a question about the topic of the Inspire campaign which was announced here. The FAQ is not especially clear how this topic was arrived at. The consultations page is rather hard to understand. Could you elaborate on the process and reasoning behind the selection of this topic? Kingsindian (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The results page is linked from the top of the consultation page. If the confusion is around AllOurIdeas as a surveying method, it is indeed a little unusual. You can read about it more in the intro of this publication. One important benefit it has is that it allows participants to submit ideas and vote on other participant-submitted ideas. To me, that seemed pretty good, as I didn't want to pretend I knew all the topics Wikimedians wanted to see for campaigns. "Addressing harassment of Wikimedia projector contributors" received a score of 36. This score indicates that, if the topic paired with another random idea in the list (see the collapsed raw idea list), it was chosen 36% of the time on average. It's true it did not score as high as other topics, but this metric was not the only consideration. A survey conducted after the first campaign on the gender gap asked asked, "What other topics or issues would you like to see an IdeaLab campaign focus on in the future?". Some of the responses included:
  • I would like to see some focus on attrition of editors, abusiveness in the community, administrative abuse and its effects on retention, the growing toxicity of the editing culture.
  • Ways to address and eradicate Talk page bullying, aggressive gate-keeping, and sending e-mails to personal addresses when they should be entered on the Talk pagees.
  • abrasive nature of the community, bullying
  • how to handle personal disagreements in editing
  • Finding ideas for moving the community to a place where we generally don't tolerate users who treat others like shit.
  • I would like to see some focus on attrition of editors, abusiveness in the community, administrative abuse and its effects on retention, the growing toxicity of the editing culture.

These kinds of comments are consistent with an effort to discuss how to address these behaviors better than we do currently. It also made sense to run this campaign coming off of the harassment survey from last year and the subsequent Harassment workshop run by Support and Safety. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

┌──────┘
Thanks for the explanation. If I understand the method correctly, we should be looking at topics which have both a high score and lots of contests. I notice that there are a couple of entries under the topic "Engaging partnerships / experts" which received fairly high scores (61 and 64) and high number of contests. There are three others with fairly high scores - but the number of pairings is quite small, so I am discarding them (a side question: how is the number of contests decided, and why not simply pair these three ideas more to see how their score pans out?).

Would it not have made sense to focus on the "Engaging partnerships / experts" as the topic? Also, if I'm not mistaken, the survey after the gender gap campaign seems to be simply be a collection of various ideas: I see a lot of different ideas there about all kinds of topics. I do not doubt that there are people who would like to focus on harassment as a topic; however whether that is the top priority seems more unclear to me. Kingsindian (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Some of those ideas that received less participation were submitted quite a bit later during the survey, which ran for about a month. I endeavored to send out invitations for folks to participate when more ideas had been submitted, but some ideas simply came in very, very late. In the future, I'd like to gather a broader base of ideas first from community members through a more conventional survey and then create an AllOurIdeas poll-- that way, most of the ideas will be available from the beginning, and participation will be more evenly spread out. I didn't have sufficient time to prepare it that way the first time, unfortunately.
The partnerships/experts idea is certainly on my radar, and I'd like to run that soon. I think there's a good case for making that the next campaign topic. The fact is there are a lot of priorities and needs, and I can only run one campaign at a time. The AllOurIdeas survey is one consideration, but it's not the only one. With that said, I would like to run campaigns on those topics, so you can expect them to happen down the line. As for the purpose of the campaigns-- they are a place for discussions to start and ideas to start taking some form. But with any idea, implementation takes time, revision, and consensus that must happen beyond this campaign, as it has for previous ones. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I have a further question. On the Leaderboard page, it says An idea's placement in this list does not signify that it is better or worse than any other idea, and the number of endorsements an idea receives does not determine whether that idea will be selected for funding. What are the criteria used for funding and who decides what will be funded? Kingsindian (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: First, people involved with the idea need to decide on their own to apply for a grant. Ideas aren't selected directly from the campaign. The criteria depend on the type of grant someone is applying for; and for Inspire Campaigns, Rapid Grants or Project Grants (to launch on July 1) are usually the most appropriate. These are the criteria for Rapid Grants. The selection criteria for Project Grants are being developed, but I think they will be similar to criteria for a recently ended program, Individual Engagement Grants. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Bug in translation engine[edit]

Grants talk:IdeaLab/Inspire#Some translations fail to register.
Disregard this message if not your area of interest.
6birc (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Apparently fixed. Thanks.
6birc (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

May I ask you to moderate the page ...[edit]

Grants:IdeaLab/Impacts on lives of the banned. Thekohser has removed my comments, and then stricken my followup. If he continues to change my comments in any way, I'll ask that he be banned from Meta-Wiki. Smallbones (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, do investigate, Jethro. You'll see that the complainant is casting wildly defamatory opinions as "fact" on a page that I created, that I shepherded, and that I reminded everyone was under Friendly Space expectations. If anyone needs to be restricted, it's Smallbones (whom you'll see had edited Meta only 2 times since March 22nd, then swooped in to direct an attack on my character. He's probably in a panic that my IdeaLab item is getting far more supports and participating volunteers than opposing comments. - Thekohser (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

all the ideas had given to Wikimedia?[edit]

My idea page does not like of the people because i don't know how to create the Probox and i think that's consuming the time so i just wrote my idea as normal text without child subject.So is it would be valid to you?thank. I mean the inspire campaign and this is my page: [4]

Without the probox, it won't actually display for the current campaign, so no one will see it. If you want, I can request deletion and you can try to create your idea again if you'd like. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks...[edit]

...for censorship. Once more you give ma a proof, that the WMF is in no way trustable. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: I don't have any issue with you expressing concerns about the WMF. But it's not appropriate to use this campaign about addressing harassment as a platform for that purpose. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

IdeaLabs[edit]

New stuffs to become a precedents...

That's all for now. I'll update this section time to time with my new cases, if you don't mind. :D — regards, Revi 15:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT (WMF): Ping for attention? — regards, Revi 08:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@-revi: All taken care of. Thanks for the reminder, revi. :) I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Your staff account[edit]

Is this the official WMF stance? I highly doubt it, I don't know why you are using a staff account while expressing a personal stance. You might not know but we had these discussions a lot when staff members use their official account and give the appearance of authority and it confuses editors. Please consider that you are an employee of an organisation, the opinion you express might or might not represent the said organisation - do not conflate a personal opinion by using an official account with (WMF) at the end of it. Philippe who looked in to this is gone now, but you might want to talk to James alexander about these roles. I take it that your comment is your personal opinion, please use your volunteer account and delineate between the two. Thank you. Theo10011 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Theo10011: That discussion is in the context of IdeaLab and the current Inspire Campaign. Maintaining behavioral standards in these projects I am responsible for maintaining is a part of my job. I have recommended Ajr change their language based on my experiences as staff and that Neotarf bring those concerns to someone's attention and open a dialogue before changes are made. I don't believe there is anything particularly controversial about this. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
i appreciate the effort, to reason with the editor. i suggest that you should strike such comments, that are contrary to consensus. i can attest that one editor, who has not commented on meta, has said, they now will not engage on meta because of this incident. i have already added ideas to idea lab from editors, who will not edit on english or meta. you should estimate that for every vocal pissed off editor you see, there are ten who have just walked away. Slowking4 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Enacting Idea Lab Proposals[edit]

Hi there, I'm author of one of the more popular proposals and we are wondering what happens next. With 12 endorsements, it is thirteenth in the robot generated leader-board of projects ranked by numbes of endorsement. The project is here: Grants:IdeaLab/Area for topic banned editors to talk freely about their ban, e.g. to ask questions of experienced wikipedians.

We see two ways forward to enact it. One is to do a pilot scheme here on meta wiki, which has the advantage of no need to create new rules as the topic bans only apply on wikipedia itself. We could also do it right away even without admin support, so long as it is a permitted thing to do here. It seems to be a gray area. We would then have the problem of attracting wikipedians to the page.

The other option is to try to get it enacted in wikipedia right away, which seems likely to be a long process. Also as banned editors we are not sure if we might run into trouble trying to do this.

This is @Darkfrog24:'s mockup of the proposed page: User:Darkfrog24/ESNMockup.

So my questions are:

  1. Can we just start it as a pilot scheme on meta wiki - will anyone have any problems with that?
  2. Will I get into trouble for asking questions about it on Wikipedia given that I have comments on its talk page mentioning my topic ban. I'd be okay with going through the proposal talk page and editing out all mentions of my topic ban subject before posting about it to wikipedia, if that helps.

I and @Darkfrog24: are both topic banned and @Darkfrog24: is currently blocked from wikipedia but neither of us is site banned.

So, what are your thoughts? Can we do either of these things? Or is there some other way to get it started as a pilot scheme? And more generally what happens next with our ideas after the initiative period closes? Thanks! See also our discussion here: Enacting

I'm posting to your talk page as one of the main editors of the page describing the scheme. If you aren't the right person to contact, can you suggest anyone else we can contact. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Robertinventor and Darkfrog24: Thanks for letting me know about the updates to the proposal-- I have to say, I'm really impressed with the depth of detail you've provided in the solution and thought through some approaches to implementation. I also appreciate that you've evaluated other ideas submitted during this campaign to see how they could be incorporated in this proposal. Let me address your questions as best I can:
Can we just start it as a pilot scheme on meta wiki - will anyone have any problems with that?
I think the idea and the mock-up look fairly ready for a pilot or experimental period. I'm usually a fan of being bold, and I think you've made a good case for getting this started. The concerns I expect would be brought up relate to ones you've mentioned here regarding What Meta is not, specifically:
  • Meta is not a battleground. You are free to state your opinions, but do not threaten, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach matters in an intelligent manner and engage in polite discussion. See the dispute resolution process.
  • Meta is not a forum for continued attacks against other users. Do not report on other users' past misdeeds here.
  • Meta is not an appeals court. If a community decides something, don't come here to try to get the decision overruled.
It seems to me that you've set up expectations and enforcement practices ahead of time to address these concerns, though. The disclaimer that opinions expressed there do not constitute consensus on a local project is good, as are the statements around proxying and deleting threads that simply reiterate previous disputes. I'll leave a recommendation with you to contact admins here on Meta to gauge their judgment on whether the page violates Meta policy / guidelines before you create the page. You could do so privately or through Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. I'd also recommend that, if you decide to create the page, make a note stating that the page is experimental, and that you'll be open to feedback to changes that can help improve how this discussion page can work. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Will I get into trouble for asking questions about it on Wikipedia given that I have comments on its talk page mentioning my topic ban. I'd be okay with going through the proposal talk page and editing out all mentions of my topic ban subject before posting about it to wikipedia, if that helps.
This is a difficult and fair question. I can't really speak to ban enforcement in my capacity as staff, but speaking as an admin on en.wiki, I'd probably recommend asking wherever the ban or topic ban came from, whether it is ArbCom or WP:AN first. It's pretty clear to me (as an admin) that the proposal is a good faith effort to provide support and a path to constructive editing for topic banned and banned editors, so I wouldn't sanction you for asking these sorts of questions. I JethroBT (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
And more generally what happens next with our ideas after the initiative period closes?
Yeah, my apologies. I need to work on making this more clear in future campaigns for participants. The value of the campaign period is that there is a lot of active messaging up during that time to bring in feedback from many different Wikimedia projects. However, there is nothing stopping anyone from continuing to work on their ideas after the campaign ends, and I'm always available for support in what next steps are needed if there is an individual or group thinking about implementing an idea. The end of Inspire Campaigns always lead into a one-month open call period for Project Grants (offered quarterly), for ideas that need substantial funding. Furthermore, Rapid Grants can be submitted at anytime for smaller grants. Do you think you will need any funding for this project? I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence. The idea is that this would work like Wikipedia's RSN and NPOVN, that it would become one more of Wikipedia's many noticeboards, all of which are worked by volunteers who participate as much or as little as they see fit. No funding required.
What I see as a technical issue is this: If it's hosted at Meta-Wiki instead of Wikipedia, how would we add it to the noticeboard category, to the template that is placed on sanctioned editors' talk pages, to users' watchlists?
My preference would be to handle everything publicly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's good news, and great to hear that the mockup looks good to you, and that you think we have anticipated some of the issues that might arise. Actually now that you put it that way, the meta rules about this not being a battleground or a forum for continued attacks or appeal might be an asset as we can rely on those rules if such things happen in the new board discussions. Yes, for sure, that sounds good, about marking it as experimental and open to feedback on ways to improve it, and from our discussions, I think surely @Darkfrog24: would also agree. That's a good way to put it and is indeed our aim, "a good faith effort to provide support and a path to constructive editing for topic banned and banned editors". Thanks for your advice about contacting an admin.
I agree with @Darkfrog24: that it's best to ask our questions about how to enact the proposal in a public open way, to leave a "paper trail" as it were, so that it's clear to everyone that we are proceeding in good faith based on the advice we have been given. Of course the responsibility is ours, but it could help a lot of any issues arise if it's really clear for instance that we asked for judgement on whether it violates Meta policy / guidelines before we create the page. And the same also for any discussions in wikipedia. So it sounds like Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat is the way to go.
I was topic banned at WP:ANI. Perhaps I could ask the admin who closed my case on his talk page. Is that the best place to ask this question or do you have another suggestion? I just had a thought now, that if the admins advise me that I can't do it, I could wait until my topic ban period expires, which happens on 27 November, 2016, after which I'd no longer be a banned editor. Or someone else involved in our new board might take it up there for us at a later date. I was interested to see that you can refer to the en version of wikipedia using [[en:WP:ANI|WP:ANI]] which will be very useful when we want to refer to various guidelines and policies in discussions here. Is it possible to do similar links to meta from the English wikipedia without needing to do the complete url? It could be useful when linking to our new notice board at some later date, if we do get permission to add links to it in wkipedia itself. Is that the technical issue you are referring to @Darkfrog24:? Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Mind a question?[edit]

I have proposed this idea Grants:IdeaLab/Wikimetrics for local users. I know it is a useful idea, people ask me this help about goreferenced wikimetrics all the time, but noone endorsed it. Should I propose it or not for a grant? It is not about the money, it is just there is no point in preparing this type of tool if there isn't a global support. I can just keep studying this things on my own. Not just on my own, I also have some help by some young and smart volunteers, but I would prefer to pay those guys for the time they spend when they give me some advise or help me to generalize the tools.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: Hey Alex, the idea seems like it has some potential based on a brief readthrough. Endorsements aren't the be all and end all of getting a grant funded, but evidence of community support (endorsements or otherwise) is one factor, and I can help you get some more attention on this idea to gauge community support. Can you e-mail me and let me know some times you are available to chat over IRC / Skype / Google Hangouts in July? We can also talk a little more so I can understand the scope of work a little better and help you get a grant proposal started. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the time. Well, I've also sent an email to someone else. i don't say the name for privacy here but (s)he works at a chapter so I'm curious to see if (s)he has some idea (I can tell you more details privately if necessary). I have to provide support at an edit-a-thon on the 12th, and I wanted to read some of the grant in this session (I already left some comments) so I would say in few days is the best, after the 12th. I live in China, the best moment in my lab are WEs or I can come early in the morning in the lab (8 am here), where in SFO is the afternoon of the previous day (5 pm, -15 h I guess). I would be sleepy but I prepared this topic in the last months. I need to know what WMF might need and I (=we) can probably refine it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Alexmar983: I live in Chicago, and I'm flexible with the time-- I routinely meet with prospective applicants outside of standard 9-5 working hours, so if 8 AM works for you, that's fine, but if there's another time that's more convenient, I don't mind being up late at all. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
thanks again. Let's see... if I work at the spectrometer, and it is very probable next week, there is no real perfect time. Let's try 8 am here on the 14th. Also if we have time a the end of the talk on maybe I can drop you some questions about another grant. I offered to help it-N users with grants and I was involved in the "Women are everywhere" proposal as a volunteer. The proposal was cancelled by the grantee (I was informed but I was not part of that decision) but maybe something can be recycled on a mid-to-long term. Some ideas about user-related wikimetrics presented in that contest overlap with our chat, in the end.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
So it is better for the afternoon of the 13th or 14th (your time in Chicago)? I send you an mail as soon as I have complete news from the other contact, so I can give you more details.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Alexmar983: Let's try for the afternoon of the 14th. When you're able, send me an e-mail at cschilling@wikimedia.org so I can setup a hangout for us on my calendar. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Designated space for editors to give and seek advice about topic bans and other sanctions[edit]

You are being contacted because you commented on the proposal for a designated space in which users, including topic-banned and other sanctioned users, could ask questions and seek information about topic bans and other sanctions, "IdeaLab/Area for topic banned editors to talk freely about their ban, e.g. to ask questions of experienced wikipedians." There is now an RfC in progress concerning this proposal. Your participation is welcome.

(I realize you may not be in a position to participate, but this seemed like a good way to keep you posted. I wish you a great weekend.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Grants talk:IdeaLab/Non violent communication[edit]

Hello Chris. May we talk this evening (Paris Time)? Tomorrow I am on holiday with no Internet access for almost 3 weeks.

It is currently 5:00 PM in France. If you want, I am available from now to midnight (current time to +7h). Gwalarn (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gwalarn: Hi Gwalarn, thanks for your message-- I've replied to you via e-mail. Take care, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Rapid Grant: draft or proposed[edit]

I report you that, when I sent the rapid grant, did not appear the box that warned me to change the status from draft to proposed. Instead, when I sent the project grant, the box appeared.--Luca Polpettini (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Luca Polpettini: Thanks Luca, I'll see what I can do to make those instructions more clear when you start a grant proposal. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Idea: Support for Wikipedian proofreaders[edit]

I would like to take a moment of your time to draw your attention to the many Wikipedians who proofread articles without logging in, could you perhaps use your contacts to talk to the people in charge of anti-vandalism bots and get them to refine their bots code to recognize spelling corrections, grammar corrections and in some cases rephrasing a section of article to improve its readability is not vandalism. Or alternatively there needs to be a community outreach program to turn these nameless helpers to stay logged in and turn into active community members. Washuchan73 (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

NVC against harassment[edit]

Hello. Are you available for a meeting today? With Marti, if possible? Just tell me, I stay tuned. Gwalarn (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Be on Skype shortly! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Grant proposal question[edit]

Hello, As your posting Grants announcement in Mongolian Wikipedia I have posted my proposal from Mongolia for Offline Wikipedia Outreach section, and how and when shall I be notified about critiques or evaluation results of my proposal? Thanks. Orgio89 (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Orgio89: Hi Orgio. The timeline for this round for Project Grants can be found Grants:Project. Community members will be providing feedback to open proposals (i.e. ones that have their status as proposed as opposed to draft in the infobox) starting from 19 October to 1 November. The Project Grants Commitee will review proposals from 2 November to 15 November, and provide feedback shortly thereafter to open proposals. In the meantime, we do expect you to invite contributors from the Mongolian and English Wikipedias to provide feedback on your proposal directly. The Village Pump is a good place to describe your idea generally and invite feedback. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiConference[edit]

Hi Chris! It was so great to see you at WikiConference North America – stay in touch! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c · enwiki) 02:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@L235: Likewise, Kevin! It was great getting to meet you in person. Hope you have a good rest of your week. :) I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Rapid grant final draft[edit]

Do you have any comments on Grants:Project/Rapid/TonyTheTiger/McDonald's All-American Boys Game before it goes live?--TonyTheTiger (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Hey Tony. I'll follow up on the Grants talk page for your proposal. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

OTRS request[edit]

Sir, OTRS customer under ticket:2016121910002526 requests Your e-mail. How shall I proceed? Sincerely, Ivi104 (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ivi104: Hey Ivi. My e-mail is publicly available: cschilling (at) wikimedia (dot) org. WMF staff are required to have their e-mail posted on their userpage so we can be easily contacted. The individual has already gotten in touch with me, so that ticket can be closed. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex/GrantsIdeaLab[edit]

There are quite some pages in the main namespace with the pattern "GrantsIdeaLabName". I guess they should be moved to Grants:IdeaLab/Name, as Romaine already did. Could you fix that the users are directly directed to the correct subpage? Savhñ 11:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Could I get a reply? Savhñ 14:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Savh-- sure thing. I'll move these pages to the appropriate place today, thanks for the note. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Savh: Yes check.svg Done I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you; I would have done it weren't it that I feared it would break something. Savhñ 20:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

For care and feeding of GrantsBot[edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
For the diligence and prowess you have exhibited while tending to my bot beast, I hereby award you this barnstar! Jtmorgan (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

New grant notification[edit]

Hi, just a small message to inform you about a new grand submission (a draft actually) inspired by your campaign. Thanks for this ! Best, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, désolé pour ma dysorthographie 11:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your year-old message[edit]

Hello,

In response to your year-old message, which I just came across on my talk page, regarding harassment on Wikipedia: too little, too late. You see, I have not logged on in so long precisely because this community is so hostile, and I neither have the time nor energy to <strikethrough>waste</strikethrough> spend getting changes reverted by the immature and/or ignorant. It's too late for Wikipedia, for I know I am not alone, and it won't relive its glory days unless it can manage to implement a scorched earth policy with respect to its senior leadership in addition to rebranding. Vast systemic problems prevent this site from living to its fullest potential, and it's a shame, because there is no better wealth than knowledge. SweetNightmares (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I had a chance to look over your talk page on en.wiki, and it was neat to see all the work you were involved with, and all the interesting conversations you had with other editors over the years. I am sorry about the negative experiences you've had, and it sounds like you've retired. I don't know all the details of your situation, but I expect that neither myself nor anyone else at the Wikimedia Foundation can change much about how you feel about it. I can't say that I agree with you about English Wikipedia having any real glory days (I've edited since 2006), but I agree that editors and the org can do a better job of building an encyclopedia and supporting volunteers respectively. Not sure that a scorched earth policy would have the outcomes you want, but if you want to go into more detail about what you mean by that, I might understand it better. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign survey on outreach to outside knowledge networks[edit]

Hi @I JethroBT (WMF):, the survey was expired, why?--Uchup19 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry and Uchup19: Uh oh! Thanks for the heads-up. I'll get to fixing these links. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry and Uchup19: Okay, should be good to go now. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done--Uchup19 (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

LocalWiki project in grants, what next?[edit]

Hi I'm very happy some people jumped in to endorse my project. How do you advise to move forward? Should I present the idea to some board, try to get funding to develop a solution, both, none of those? I'd really like the idea to move forward, I think local lore and knowledge should have a place in wikipedia, even if in a somehow separated room. Thank you in advance --Mfortini (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mfortini: I have two thoughts on the matter right now-- first is to check existing wikis that the Wikimedia Foundation maintains to see if this kind of information about localities can be added to those projects (instead of starting a new one). Wikivoyage might be one place to consider checking out, which essentially acts as a travel guide. If not, you can propose a new projects here. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not verified glam project[edit]

Hi Jethro, did you know why didn't I received until this moment any feedback about eligibility here? Sorry to bother you, however you are the only one interact with us. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 16:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, never mind. :) Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 19:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Userpage_AbuseFilter[edit]

Is my impression correct that "Does the editor have confirmed status? (i.e. Is their account at least four days old, and have they made at least 10 edits?)" should read: Has the editor not yet reached the confirmed status? (i.e. Is the account less than four days old, and has made less than ten edits?)" in relation to the following: "If all of these conditions are met [...]"? Thanks, 76.10.128.192 23:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that correction. I'll make this change right away. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A project....[edit]

What's the current status about [5].(I'm primarily active on en.eiki and interested about RFC's).Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Hey Godric, thanks for your interest. We're developing some interview protocols at the moment and plan to do some interviewing later on this month with individuals who close or otherwise participate in RfCs. If you're interested in participating in those interviews, let me know! I know you have some background with RfC closures. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
You have new messages
Hello, I JethroBT (WMF). You have new messages at ITeachThem's talk page.
Message added 20:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rapid grant to support a hackathon conference on offline open educational resources[edit]

Hi - I was wondering if the reviewing had been opened yet for the hackathon? I want to make sure that things are moving forward, as we're on a tight timeline. Many thanks! Walkerma (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Walkerma: Hah, I think I was just reviewing it as you sent me this message. The project is approved! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Excellent news - thank you for your help! Walkerma (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

WLM India 2017 Vijayawada Photo-walk[edit]

Hi Jethro, hop everything is fine. Just reminding, please see my comment at Grants talk:Project/Rapid/Krishna Chaitanya Velaga/WLM India 2017 Vijayawada Photo-walk. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talkmail) 10:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Grant Proposal[edit]

I added a project grant proposal today and I am wondering how the status is determined. Also can you take a look and see if I submitted it correctly?

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Tab names in the grant program navbars[edit]

Hi! In some pages for some grants programs is used these templates:

There are parameters for localizing tab names, but they are not used when calling.

What about including these tab titles into Template:GrantmakingNavbar/Content? See my changes for "Title" param as example. --Kaganer (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kaganer: Sorry, I've been on parental leave (and will be through October)! I'll leave a note at the top of my talk page. The proposal here sounds good to me on the face of it, but let's discuss it more when I return. Thanks for letting me know. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Help design a new feature to stop harassing emails[edit]

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2016 Community Wishlist discussion or IdeaLab discussion about letting users restrict who can send them email.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

It is important to hear from a broad range of people who are interested in the design of the tool, so we hope you join the discussion.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.