Grants talk:Project/Rapid/Louvain Coopération/Wiki 4 Coop

Discussion with the first requester Lionel Scheepmans

Hi Lionel Scheepmans. Thank you for this grant request and your patience in the review. It is our understanding that the project aims to fund a part-time Wikipedian-in-Residence (WiR) at Louvain Coopération, an NGO focused on development issues. This person would train staff to edit the Wikimedia projects, digitize content held by the NGO,and share the content with the NGO's Global South partners, utilizing projects such as Kiwix, Wikipedia Zero and Wiki Med. Please let us know if we understand this correctly. We have a few questions, similar to those we ask for every Wikipedian-in-Residence project:

1. To fund a WiR project, we need to see interest from the local community to engage with the content that is held by the institution/organization. Have you reached out to your community to see if they are interested in using the content that will be digitized?
2. What level of commitment and interest have you received from the Louvain Coopération staff in working on this project? How would this work be integrated into their workflow?
3. In your Project Grant application, two of the activities include, "The French wikipedia article about Louvain Coopération is created as example off good paid editing (done) and A user account Louvain Coopération is created for uploading NGO's files and present the list of NGO's staff as paid editors (done)". Can you please explain why these contributions are being done as paid editing? Note that we cannot fund any direct content creation.
4. Can you give some examples of the type of content that would be added to Wikimedia projects?
5. A longer-term goal of the project is to support collaboration between the Wikimedia communities and the Digital for Development (D4D) project. Can you please provide more details about how you would establish this collaboration and what the intended impact of the partnership would be?

Looking forward to your responses. Best, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alex, nice to meet you on this grant talk page.

Your description of the project on its starting level of rapid grant is correct. I'will now give answers to yours questions :

1. Sure the interest of local community should be a good think. You think certainly about Wikimedia Belgium Chapter. I've share information about the Grants:Project/Lionel_Scheepmans/Wiki_4_Coop and ask for sharing their interest and eventual endorsment to all board members, on mailing list and personally to the president of the association but I didn't get reply. You have to know than the week before the last general assembly of Wikimedia Belgium we had me with some of the actual board members an altercation through mail exchange and I couldn't be present to the GA for solving the situation with face to face explanation. Since this time, I didn't have contact with Wikimedia Belgium exepted by receiving general information by the mailing list. Maybe that's why, or maybe there are overbooked, I don't know... Any way, I will right now ping all actual and ex Board members to clarify the situation. Hey @Geertivp, SPQRobin, Romaine, Afernand74, Lfurter, MADe, and M0tty: are you ok to give a feedback about this grant ?
2. I can not speak on behalf of all Louvain Coopération Staff. However, I can give you a list of actions linked to the project already done in Louvain Coopération : - Action made by me and not include in this actual or future grant proposal but payed by the NGO (previous answer to question 3) (A) The article w:fr:Louvain Coopération in three languages has been created, for the benefit of the NGO of course, but also to give a complete presentation of the association in the context of grant proposals and also to give an example off good paid editing (Louvain coopération staff will probably contribute to the projet during working time and not (maybe I hope) as volunteers. (B) The user account user:Louvain Coopération with a starting list of association staff was created in one hand to make Louvain Coopération actions in Wikimedia Project as transparent as possible in the context of this project for communities supervision and project evaluation, and in second had to deal with authorship of contain upload by the NGO (C) Few pages of contain are already created linked to this grant project on fr.Wikiversity two with Louvain Coopération account and one with my account (all next new pages will be created with Louvain Coopération account only to clarify project evaluation). (D) A contact was fixed between the Louvain Coopération director and OTRS system to establish an auto-patrolled statue for Louvain Coopération account on Commons and inform communities about verification of account identity. Now, if necessary, I cant ask to my Director to create an Wikimedia account and express them self in the name of Louvain Coopération. We can also programing a video conference with him as I've already done on other grant submission.
3. No, the creation of Louvain Coopération and all works already done before grant acceptation as listed above are obliviously not supported by any grant from Wikimedia Foundation.
4. You already got above some examples of contain and page that should be created in the context of this grant. More than this we can also expect the importation of pedagogical websites contain created by an NGO sector of activity but actually on non commercial license (see this website to make your opinion by clicking on the blue bubble. Lot of photos and videos could be also uploaded giving a great potential to enhance wikimedia page about global south contain.
5. I would like to be able to read on the future but currently it's difficult to me to anticipate the possible collaboration between Belgian Cooperation administration and Wikimedia movement. On this level of the project, and strictly on this grant proposal context, I can only confirm than if the grant will be accepted, contacts and lobbying will be done with the Belgian administration showing the interest of the Wikimedia Foundation about the D4D project through eventual grant acceptation and the start of Wiki 4 Coop project with in Wikimedia Movement. Ideally, for this, I would use Project chief statue with in Wikimedia Belgian Association. If contact, and good relation will be reestablished between WMBE and me, it should be possible. That's my desire and I'm ready to propose a meetup for face to face explanation giving eventual apologize for misunderstood creating by eventual unclear email messages sending by me. If not, the project could also running apart of WMBE. I stil have the opportunity as administrator of the WMBE wiki site to spread information on it.

I hope than you found here good aswers to your questions Alex and I stay in stanby for the rest.

Best, Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 10:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

P.-S. Just to clarify on point Alex witch was unclear during a discussion with Doc James : The money of the grant will only, exclusively, and in totality go to the NGO w:Louvain Coopération bank account and the transaction will be deal directly with the NGO not with me. And the rapid grant will pay the half part of one hour of work during working day in benefit to the Wiki 4 Coop project during my regular and full time NGO staff activities (as a wikimedian in residence do in general I presume).

Hello Lionel, You mention my name, so I assume you would like me to give a reaction and feedback here. Let me start with reading the grant proposal.

• Project Goal: why does this section not contain the actual project goal? It only contains a vague sentence about collaboration and lobbying. Lobbying for what? What kind of collaboration? A project goal should be SMART: specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic, and time-bound. This project goal is not specific, it is not measurable, it is not time-bound (as the description is extremely vague and not possible to determine when it is completed), and if it is acceptable and realistic can't be determined based on the current goal description.
• Project Plan: Activities:
  • "Tell us how you'll carry out your project." -> with the answer below this question (this rapid grant will cover the cost of one hours each 106 working days), you say that the money received with this grant is spent on getting an income. Wikimedia does not exist to provide you an income.

The board of Wikimedia Belgium already explained this earlier.

• • "What will you have done at the end of your project?" -> This question is asked to understand what you will work to as final result of your project. But this question is not answered in simple way.
    • "Uploading L. C. NGO files and knowledge on Wikimedia commons." -> What files? What knowledge? The NGO is an organisation that "fight[s] against poverty" and works on "Access to healthcare". I can imagine that they make photos sometimes when they visit foreign countries, but how is that helping Wikimedia? And what knowledge does LC have that is relevant for Wikimedia?
    • "Creating and improving courses on French Wikiversity projects with L.C. NGO contain." -> Is this grant request intended to fund the development of courses on Wikiversity?
    • "Creating and improving articles on French Wikipedia" -> Are you going to create and improve articles in Wikipedia? Why should this be paid?
    • "Lobbying in Belgium Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for development cooperation Alexander De Croo concerning D4D program to involve ::Belgian cooperation stakeholders in Wikimedia movement." -> do you know Alexander De Croo already? Otherwise I do not think this will work. What is D4D? I am not aware of a D4D program in the Wikimedia movement, so if this grant is funded, this seems lobbying for a goal outside the Wikimedia movement. Why should Wikimedia fund this?
    • The only line I think is suitable for funding is "Forming L.C. NGO staff and volunteers to use wikimedia projects and upload file on Wikimedia commons." But then only if the organisation actually has a large resource of materials. I do not know this organisation well, I only know that they fight against poverty and access to healthcare, but that gives me no information.
• Project Plan: Impact: Practically I read that 160 pages are created/improved. If I personally make one photo tour I can easily make 100 photos and in the days after I can write a dozen articles on these subjects. That would cost less than 50 euros. With this grant request to get the same (and only) results, here 1800 euros is asked. And pdf files are commonly not really useful as content.
• Project Plan: Resources: The equipment and facilities are already there at L.C. NGO.
  • "Half part of wage for one working hour per day during the project's period." -> With only a few content pages as output, which are not much results, I read that this project is proposed to arrange an income for the requester. Is that something where we should spend the money from donors on? I would say no.

Then, to respond on the messages above on this talk page:

1) I can confirm that we (WMBE) have received an e-mail from Lionel. None of us has responded to this e-mail for two main reasons: we do not think that this project would contribute (sufficient) content to the Wikimedia platforms, and we think this project is organised to provide an income for the requester, which we as board of WMBE find not acceptable. In January 2017 we had as board a discussion with the requester on multiple topics, including this subject. The general tone of the mails was something like: in the Wikimedia movement WMF and a lot of affiliates have paid staff, thus he can be paid as well. He wanted to become a board member, but he indicated that as he was a Wikipedian, he did not want to take any responsibility belonging to this role. Multiple of us explained clearly to him that this is not possible nor acceptable, with reasons and arguments why. He gave no sign of understanding, but started to react offensive. After last year's issues with our former treasurer, we have no interest in repeating this.

Reading this grant request, I see no sign of understanding and see just another attempt to provide income, instead of organising projects to support the goals of the Wikimedia movement.
None of the board nor any active member has endorsed the grant request, for the reasons mentioned and because this can damage the reputation of Wikipedia/Wikimedia.
"Maybe that's why, or maybe there are overbooked" -> No, we tried to explain to you clearly why certain things are not possible, and the answers we got back from you where hostile.

3) "The French wikipedia article about Louvain Coopération is created as example off good paid editing (done)" -> Why is this an example of "good paid editing"? An organisation writing an article about itself is highly problematic. The content of the French article is insufficient and problematic.

5) "Ideally, for this, I would use Project chief statue with in Wikimedia Belgian Association." -> what? With this project you wouldn't get project chief status, certainly not.
"If contact, and good relation will be reestablished between WMBE and me, it should be possible." -> No it is not. We explained to you that becoming a board member comes with responsibilities, responsibilities you did not take seriously. We explained to you that Wikimedia is not there, just to provide you an income, but you did not take that seriously. And the way how you reacted towards us was not a sign of good relation.
"That's my desire and I'm ready to propose a meetup for face to face explanation giving eventual apologize for misunderstood creating by eventual unclear email messages sending by me." -> A meetup as such would not solve the issues. The only way to solve the situation, is if you apologise and you recognize the minimum principles of the Wikimedia movement. Your emails where not unclear, they were very clear and in violation with core principles.
"I stil have the opportunity as administrator of the WMBE wiki site to spread information on it." -> It is completely irrelevant that you are an administrator on our wiki. Anyone can create a project page, as long as the projects and activities are in line with the goals of the Wikimedia movement. As indicated before, I do not think this project is line with the goals and principles of the Wikimedia movement. And that you refer again to a function in an inappropriate way is disturbing, if this continues we probably will have the administrator possibilities removed because of inappropriate use.

Wikimedia Belgium is open for anyone who wants to organise something and we are happy to facilitate all people who actually contribute to the Wikimedia movement. We think Wikimedia does not exist to host projects that have as main goal to give someone an income. I am very concerned that this "project" will have negative consequences for Wikimedia/Wikipedia in Belgium. Romaine (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC).

Thanks Romaine for this feedback from WMB board members.

I propose to leave aside the aparent conflict which oppose some actual WMB board member and me to focus on the grant. However, I would like to continue the debate on an other page witch could be eventually indicated by Alex. I will just inform you that I agree when you tell me « It is completely irrelevant that you are an administrator on our wiki. »

I don't share your point of view about this present rapid grant Romaine. This grant submission in SMART.

Spécific : It concern a wellknow program of Wikimedian in residence.

Mesurable : The page user:Louvain Coopération provide already now enough information to measure and control the evolution of the project.

Acceptable : If a wikimedian was acceptable on certain place why not on a Belgian NGO, more than this, the idea of this project came for an Inspire campain than encourage Wikimedian to collaborate with institution.

Realistic : We have all technical tool and knowledge here to make the up load of file effective.

Time-bound : This rapid grant is a first test before an other grant submission. It will start when and if this rapid grand will be supported by Wikimedia Foudation and stop in September with a next project grant. If the project grant will be supported, a part of activities of this actual rapid grant will continue but the rapid grant it self will finish. If the project grant won't be supported this rapid grant will stop as well and my participation on Wikimedia project during my working time in the NGO as well to.

You say « Wikimedia does not exist to provide you an income. The board of Wikimedia Belgium already explained this earlier. » That's not true. As I've already explain, Wikimedia foundation also exist to pay wages to people who are assume, as Alex, various task that keep the global wikimedia movement possible. Here an other example if I'don't make mistake, Dimi z (than I've forgot to ping, sorry Dimi) actually has a paid job on the project EU_policy. He was also part, as volunteers, of the board of Wikimedia Belgium the first year. So, this rapid grant ask for income, but this income go directly to the NGO not to me and only to legitimize the time spend (as right now) on wikimedia project during my working time paid by the NGO. And a very important misunderstood than WMB board members must to avoid is this : I've never ask to be paid to be WMB board member. I've separately propose to joint the board as volunteer and to work for the chapter as employee. I had the opportunity to work 18 month full time for the chapter for free thanks to government help but the actual Board was not able to understand and finally that's a good think for me because I've finally get a job in an NGO. Still now. I propose to explain to the board how to get this opportunity with an other worker than me. But I didn't get reply to my email. Even not a polite answer with explanation about why you want stop our 3 years of collaboration.

You ask « What files ? What knowledge ? » You can found replies on this page, on project grant description and Louvain Coopération user account. But one more time : the entire contain of web site created by AFD section of the NGO (clic on the bleue buble). The contain of a DVD « Healthcare Techniques » and an other pedagogical project not yet finish about « Practice caesarean in an isolated environment ». This is for concrete pedagogical project. You can ad to this in term and if the projet grant will be supported more than on undred Go of photos and videos stored by the NGO since 1982.

« An organization writing an article about itself is highly problematic. The content of the French article is insufficient and problematic. » All organization try to write an article about itself and that normal and not a problem at all because this organisation has obviously a lot of information about them self. What is problematic is when an organization try to make the article promotional of don't use reputed sources to spread information. Paid edition exist and the foundation know it and accept it because a framework already created for this circonstenses. More than this I'm just following Wikimedia movement recommendations.

So just to finish. You say : « Wikimedia Belgium is open for anyone who wants to organise something and we are happy to facilitate all people who actually contribute to the Wikimedia movement. » except me obviously. And you say « We think Wikimedia does not exist to host projects that have as main goal to give someone an income. I am very concerned that this "project" will have negative consequences for Wikimedia/Wikipedia in Belgium. ». I find here a very problematic comments from a representative of WMB board. These comments point a certain incomprehension of the actual situation of the Wikimedia movement and express on a public space a very negative image of my proposal based on personal conflict. One more time Alex, if you can give me a place to treat the specific problem of personal conflict apart of this grant submission, I will be greet full. All the Best, Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 09:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Other answers to Romain questions before leaving this grant application task to a Louvain Coopération collegue in reason of the actual personal conflict. I have a meeting with my director at 2 pm. We will discuss his wikimedia account creation and the contain of an email to wikimedia foundation with copy to WMBE president to clarify the situation.

Here are answers to Romain questions by questions :

• Romain says : « I can imagine that they make photos sometimes when they visit foreign countries, but how is that helping Wikimedia? And what knowledge does LC have that is relevant for Wikimedia? » Your imagination is manipulated bu the conflict, Louvain Coopération as a University NGO exist since 1981 with project on three continents. The associatioin deal with agronomy, medecine and pédagogical action. What this grant propose is to upload is hy quality file and definitely not photo from holiday.
• « Is this grant request intended to fund the development of courses on Wikiversity? » Partially yes, and the edition should be make by professional expert during working time and not only by me obviously.
• « Are you going to create and improve articles in Wikipedia?» Yes we will do « Why should this be paid? » No the edition of expert won't be paid. What will pay the grant is symbolic amount that will prove the implication of Wikimedia Foundation on the project.
• « Do you know Alexander De Croo already? » We already had email exchange with on of his adviser and we wait the start of the project to go ahead in our communication. « What is D4D? » D4D is some thing that all association dealing with digitalization of knowledge should normally know. Information are linked in grants submissions. « Why should Wikimedia fund this? » Because Wikimedia in his last inspire campaign focused on 'developing outside knowledge networks' to support creation and improvement of content on Wikimedia projects.
• Romain wrote : « I can confirm that we (WMBE) have received an e-mail from Lionel. None of us has responded to this e-mail for two main reasons: we do not think that this project would contribute (sufficient) content to the Wikimedia platforms, The minimum than we can espect from a public association as WMBE is than It reply to any email addressed. That's a question of respect and courtesy.
• Romain wrote « we think this project is organised to provide an income for the requester, which we as board of WMBE find not acceptable » This is a heavy public personal attack publish in the name of WMBE association against a long term volunteer of wikimedia movement spending lot of time for free to the benefit of the movement and trusted by other people deaply engaged in the movement during his professional activity.

This behavior is unacceptable. For this reason, I draw the attention of Katherine Maher, Maggie Dennis, Sarah Malik and Alex Wang and ask them to help me to find the best place and the best practice to treat this personal attack made by official Wikimedia representative. Thanks to them in advence.

I will leave now the task to finish this grant submission to a college not accustomed to edit on Wikimedia project for treat this public personal attack issue apart. A nice day to every one. Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 08:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Conflict? Is there a disagreement on certain topics? Yes. But a disagreement does not need to be a conflict . And I think I can say for the whole board, we like to avoid conflicts. However, this does not mean that we say yes to everything. As board we have the role of judging requests if they meet the minimal standards and appropriate use of logo, appropriate use of funds, appropriate use of the name Wikimedia, endorsement of basic principles common in the Wikimedia movement, and so on. Each time when a request is published or submitted, we try to judge the request in a fair way. If we have concerns, we will share this, independent who this may concern. If this grant request was submitted by anyone else, including members of the board, with the same background, the reaction would be the same. This has nothing to do with you personally, but a request like this goes against our principles, as we explained to you already in January with a different topic, but similar principles.

We as board are very disappointed in the fact that this time as well as with earlier occasions, all our feedback, which we tried to provide in a honest and polite way, is perceived by you as a personal attack. We do not understand why criticism is not possible.

If it is the case that the words in the previous message are considered as a personal attack by the grants team, we like to hear it from them. If the grants team thinks that the words in the previous message are indeed a personal attack, I certainly will apologize for that as that is never our intention.

We consider feedback as a vital part of our movement, as feedback can improve the quality of both the platforms and the projects.

I am not sure if the board of WMBE considers this situation as a conflict, however we certainly consider it problematic. Both the ways how you behaved earlier, as well as currently.

Again, WMBE is open to everyone. But there are minimal standards that have to be met before we can support any project or grant. The current grant request is for the same reasons as we explained to you in January 2017, problematic. Romaine (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I give you answers to all questions concerning this grant submission Romaine. Now, please don't flood this talking page on the name of Wikimedia Belgium association and let's continue the discussion on appropriate place as soon as we have indication from Wikimedia Fondation and the President of the association Wikimedia Belgium. Personally I stop right now all communication with you on this page Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 15:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

To respond to your answers on the questions asked:

• "I don't share your point of view about this present rapid grant Romaine. This grant submission in SMART." -> Then we disagree with each other. The grant proposal insufficiently describes the goals of the project. It is completely unclear how Wikimedia is getting better because of this project.
• "Spécific : It concern a wellknow program of Wikimedian in residence." -> I am sorry, but also here we then disagree. I have seen all kinds of various WiR projects and proposals, but with all of those it is very clear what the project is about. In this case to me it isn't. And if this is a WiR project, a WiR is not a goal but a mean to achieve goals. It is not clear how this project would contribute to Wikimedia.
• "Mesurable : The page user:Louvain Coopération provide already now enough information to measure and control the evolution of the project." -> Sorry, but I do not read the "enough information" in the proposal, to me most of the vital parts that I would expect in the grant proposal are missing.
• "You say « Wikimedia does not exist to provide you an income. The board of Wikimedia Belgium already explained this earlier. » That's not true. As I've already explain, Wikimedia foundation also exist to pay wages to people who are assume, as Alex, various task that keep the global wikimedia movement possible." -> First of all: in the Wikimedia movement only those people are paid that support the movement, but not those people who create content. A paid position to create content is not acceptable, this we explained in January as well. It is also not okay to think that volunteers that are long-term active must get the opportunity to get paid after some time
• "Here an other example if I'don't make mistake, Dimi z (than I've forgot to ping, sorry Dimi) actually has a paid job on the project EU_policy. He was also part, as volunteers, of the board of Wikimedia Belgium the first year." -> The basic principle in the Wikimedia movement is that if something can be done by volunteers, such should be done so. In the earlier years with this example it appeared clearly that this task could not be done by a volunteer. The example you mention is exactly one where it was not possible to have it done by a volunteers, as it required a full time person, and not just someone who have some spare hours left to do this. The comparing with Dimi is not a fair comparison. (And also this we explained in January!)
• "So, this rapid grant ask for income" -> This is described as goal of the grant, that makes it problematic. Getting a grant to get income is not okay.
• "And a very important misunderstood than WMB board members must to avoid is this : I've never ask to be paid to be WMB board member. I've separately propose to joint the board as volunteer and to work for the chapter as employee." -> We completely understood your intentions as you clearly described them in your emails to us.
  • We have never stated that you wanted to be paid as board member. You requested to join the board to get free access to conferences, to get status in the Wikimedia movement, and get other benefits. All three were clearly explained by WMBE board in January 2017 as not acceptable. And the conference you liked to visit other board members paid for themselves!!
  • We also have clearly explained that your goal to become an employee, as you indicated that WMF and other chapters also having paid staff, you should be paid as well, is also not acceptable. As we said in January as well, in other chapters there is not the goal of getting people paid, but the growth of the organisations require staff (that get paid) to be able to function at all. Even if WMBE would get paid staff, WMBE would hire someone for its qualities that are missing in the local community and not because we think someone in our community misses the income.
• "I had the opportunity to work 18 month full time for the chapter for free thanks to government help [...]" -> ???
• "finally that's a good think for me because I've finally get a job in an NGO." -> If an NGO hires you, it is up to them to decide. (And congratulations if that is the case!) But again, Wikimedia does not exist to pay for someone being employed.
• "But I didn't get reply to my email. Even not a polite answer with explanation about why you want stop our 3 years of collaboration." -> Which collaboration? WMBE has so far I know not received from you a proposal for a project in the past three years. But even if we had such proposal and if we had approved a collaborative project, still the project did not supply the minimal metrics that are required for all the projects, as WMBE is required to supply these metrics to WMF.
• "But I didn't get reply to my email. Even not a polite answer" -> In January 2017 we replied polity to your e-mail, and what we got returned from you was very impolite and offensive, as well as that you violated the most basic privacy policy. Your behaviour was below any standards. We still have not received any apology. You only came with that your language is not so good, but you speak French fluently and you communicated with a French speaking board member. We complained about your behaviour of reacting, and you kept on doing so. You ignored all our feedback we gave, and with this grant the exact same discussion has been started with this grant request as took place in January. We all have patience with language issues, as we all have them, but you crossed the line of what is considered acceptable. Why do you expect a polite answer from us if you repeatedly did not answer polite yourself?
• "You ask « What files ? What knowledge ? » You can found replies on this page, on project grant description and Louvain Coopération user account." -> If I had sufficient answers to this question in your grant proposal, I would not have asked these questions. The proposal is way too limited, your answer provides a little information, but still insufficient.
• "« An organization writing an article about itself is highly problematic. The content of the French article is insufficient and problematic. » All organization try to write an article about itself and that normal and not a problem at all because this organisation has obviously a lot of information about them self. What is problematic is when an organization try to make the article promotional of don't use reputed sources to spread information. Paid edition exist and the foundation know it and accept it because a framework already created for this circonstenses." -> Yes, every day organisations try to write articles about themselves, and every day such articles are deleted. WMF/Wikimedia also has blocked organisations that promote this. The problem with organisations writing about themselves as basic standards that are required in every article on Wikipedia are ignored and violated. If you are not aware of this, we do not think it is possible to represent Wikimedia with sufficient quality to other organisations .
• "So just to finish. You say : « Wikimedia Belgium is open for anyone who wants to organise something and we are happy to facilitate all people who actually contribute to the Wikimedia movement. » except me obviously." -> If it is just to get paid, or just to get access to conferences, or just to get benefits, plus with the full rejection of taking the responsibilities that belongs to becoming a board member/etc, yes then it is a problem. But if you would propose a project, like others have done also, we are happy to support you as long as minimal requirements (reporting, metrics, receipts, etc) are accepted. You clearly indicated in your emails that you refuse these.
• "a very negative image of my proposal based on personal conflict" -> As you should clearly in your e-mails and now again, if we give you feedback to help you improve your activities/projects, you always accuse of of "personal attack" and we still have not seen any sign that you take our feedback seriously.
• "Your imagination is manipulated bu the conflict" -> The grant proposal misses a basic description of the content this organisation has and wants to share (I assume they want to share), I try to imagine what they might have, hoping you can give us some answers. Instead coming with blaming others, without taking responsibility yourself for the lacking information.
• "« Is this grant request intended to fund the development of courses on Wikiversity? » Partially yes, and the edition should be make by professional expert during working time and not only by me obviously." -> I am not sure if this is okay.
• "« Are you going to create and improve articles in Wikipedia?» Yes we will do « Why should this be paid? » No the edition of expert won't be paid. What will pay the grant is symbolic amount that will prove the implication of Wikimedia Foundation on the project." -> Sorry, but I think this is questionable.
• "Because Wikimedia in his last inspire campaign focused on 'developing outside knowledge networks' to support creation and improvement of content on Wikimedia projects." -> This does answer why some projects can be funded, but the question remains why Wikimedia should this specific project.
• "The minimum than we can espect from a public association as WMBE is than It reply to any email addressed. That's a question of respect and courtesy." -> As said, they way how you responded to us showed very limited respect and no courtesy. Why is respect and courtesy only to be expected from WMBE to you, and not the opposite?
• Is miss-spelling of a name a sign of respect and courtesy?
• "« we think this project is organised to provide an income for the requester, which we as board of WMBE find not acceptable » This is a heavy public personal attack" -> You say literally in your grant proposal "this rapid grant will cover the cost of one hours each 106 working days", plus that you work for this NGO .

We explained you all of this in January. Now it is explained again. I do not see any sign that you have taken our feedback seriously. Now again we have given feedback. It does not make sense to repeat and repeat and repeat. If you do not take our feedback seriously, it does not make sense for us to respond here any longer. Romaine (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lionel Scheepmans. This is a note to acknowledge that we have seen your pings and are reviewing the discussion in detail. We will post our next round of comments on the grant proposal tomorrow. Best, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alex, in reply to your message above and in annexe of my email, I've made in bold with note here below, all part of the text than I consider as false informations, focusing on me, based on personal email exchange, in the name of all wikimedia belgium institution. That's for me a very uncomfortable situation in regard of my personal integrity and my privacy.

On the same time I've made in Italic part of the text that for me point a certain Cognitive dissonance and/or problematic behavior or beliefs in Wikimedia Movement (with note below).

As has already been said, I will leave now the room for a colleague and stop here by saying :

I've spend loot of time trying to establish a collaboration between wikimedia movement and my NGO. I was expecting help, support, example or guide to the best way to achieve the project, collaboration on edition and so on. I've receive (with a certain delay), bureaucratic barrier, questions or affirmations suspecting my honesty and my integrity.

It's look for me then we reach the limit of this actual grant system based on a critical evaluation when collaboration and support is necessary.

The result is my complete demotivation.

I wish good luck to wikimedia volunteers and staff to realize the aim pursued by this project without me.

All the best, Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 13:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

P.-S. you can see on this permanent page a part of bold and italics text reverted by Romain.

Notes

Change of Louvain Cooperation grant adviser and discussion with the second requester Feronthomas

Hi, just to inform that Feronthomas (contact) will now be the adviser of this grant. Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 13:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Additional comments from WMF

Hi Lionel Scheepmans. We apologize that we have been delayed in responding to your pings the last week, but understand that there will be no more engagement from WMBE on this request.

Thank for this reply Alex Wang (WMF) and never mine for the delay. The lack of engagement form WMBE is generally what's append on volunteers sphere when people do not get along together. No one maintains a conflictual relationship for fun and for free. This is also a limit of any movement created and supported by voluntary service. Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 08:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments on discussion page

We understand you are offended by many of the comments above and believe them to be a misrepresentation of your character and intentions. However, you asked for feedback from the local chapter and they did provide useful comments on both the request itself and more context for why they did not support it. This does not mean we will not fund the project, but local community support is an important consideration for us. We are sensitive to the fact that their comments have come across as very personal, frustrated, and perhaps antagonistic. We will provide feedback on their communication style. You have also expressed that there have been violations of Friendly Space Expectations and detailed your rational in the notes section. We agree that some of the comments are not directly relevant to the content of the proposal and would have been better left unsaid. The best next step to resolve these issues is for you and WMBE not to engage anymore on the request as they have given their feedback already. This is confirmed and we can move forward. We recognize that this has been challenging and painful for both sides and hope we can just focus on the content of the Rapid Grant proposal.

Thanks for considering my request Alex Wang (WMF). That's right than I've asked for feedback from the local chapter. But it was obliviously for talking about the project, not about my person in a very bad way. Is Wikimedia planing actions related to "misrepresentation of character and intentions" ? The bold part of the text above still leave me in a uncomfortable position related of "comments very personal, frustrated, and perhaps antagonistic". Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 08:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

With my previous post I was hoping that we could end the situation and return to a normal situation, but attacks towards the integrity and intentions of WMBE still have been posted again and again on this page afterwards.

I like to clearly state that the way how Lionel is reacting on this page is too many times a misrepresentation of WMBE's board intentions, as well as a misrepresentation of the actual situation. If any action is planned or continued in this way, we will consider to file an official complaint. We have stated clearly in January that his behaviour is unacceptable and still is here on this page. In both occasions we have been offended multiple times. That is why many of us do not want to react any more.

"personal" -> I can imagine that the feedback is experienced as personal, as the proposer likes to do a project and has passion for it. I can imagine as well that the feedback given is too personal in comparison to other proposals. The origin of this starts already in the first message from the proposer of 10:05, 2 May 2017 on this talk page. In this message the earlier situation was not described as it earlier actually was, but left out major aspects that were problematic to the board of WMBE. That stings us. The board did not "misunderstood", did not find it "unclear email messages", but was for us sound and clear. In this first message of 10:05 on 2 May, we are asked "to clarify the situation".

First the proposer writes a message with leaving out important parts of the problem, then suggesting that it is weird that we did not reply, as well as giving a misrepresentation and suggesting things that aren't true, next asking us to clarify the situation, and then complaining it gets too personal.........

If a misrepresentation of a situation is present somewhere, as well as that we are referred to in a bad manner and putting WMBE's name in jeopardy, and then we are asked to clarify the situation, we have no choice other than getting into this part (even while we would have loved to avoid this). Do not blame the other if you asked for it yourself.

"based on personal email exchange, in the name of all wikimedia belgium institution. That's for me a very uncomfortable situation in regard of my personal integrity and my privacy." -> In January 2017 Lionel shared a personal e-mail conversation with a larger group of people, without the permission of that actual person involved, and still considered problematic. + On this page multiple times attacks have been written towards WMBE that undermine the integrity of WMBE. Integrity and privacy are things that should be kept in mind, but this never can only come from only one direction.

"I've spend loot of time trying to establish a collaboration between wikimedia movement and my NGO. I was expecting help, support, example or guide to the best way to achieve the project, collaboration on edition and so on." -> First, WMBE has only received one simple e-mail with a link and we have seen no signs that can confirm an attempt of establishing a collaboration. Second, if you first offend and attack people, even without any apology, and then expect to get help, support, etc, this is not a realistic expectation. Earlier we offered you help, but we got harassment returned.

If you ask us for feedback, we will give you feedback. Feedback means that we will have a critical look at a project to make a project better. If we go through a project proposal and we notice issues, we will indicate them in a clear way. Feedback is not intended to indicate how great a proposal is, but is intended to get the proposal better. This is also the case if you do not like the feedback. During the review of the proposal we may indicate assumptions. If an assumption is not right, this is because of missing information. Solution: indicate that the assumption is not right and add/supply the missing information. Also, if we ask questions, we ask those questions to get a better understanding of the project proposal. If you want to get your proposal improved and accepted, these missing information should be provided first.

We have seen many project proposals. Both good ones as less good ones. With seeing the many project proposals, we learned how to write a good proposal. We also learned to make good project proposals by writing those proposals ourselves. In the past five years we have written more than a dozen project proposals. I think we all started from having no experience with project proposals five years ago, to having experience in writing them successfully and organising a project successfully. Multiple of the earlier proposals were that bad that the grants team has rejected them. Thanks to the feedback, including heavy comments, from WMF and community members, we were able to improve our project proposals so that we are successful with them now. We also needed a perspective change: they way how we did set up our proposals was in earlier years pretty bad. Yes, that worked demotivating for us at that time, but at the same time we took the negative feedback seriously and learned from it. And on one earlier proposal we got even much harder feedback than we got with this proposal on this page. This resulted in big argument, bigger than on on this proposal's talk page, but because we all realised everyone of us wanted make the project a success, we took each other's feedback seriously and this made the project better. And we learned from it.

Negative feedback is not a pleasant situation, for nobody in Wikimedia. All the negative feedback is given because the people in the Wikimedia movement care for each other's projects. But this feedback is given to make Wikimedia better. I do not think I have seen people getting happy with negative feedback, but they all realised themselves in the end that improvements were needed and worked on getting the proposals improved. They think: I made a proposal, the people who gave feedback have much more experience on these proposals, if I am smart I take the feedback seriously and try to improve the proposal. And that is what they did. They improved their proposals and made it better.

All project proposals in WMBE get feedback from us, as well happens in the other chapters. Often this feedback is given by e-mail as that is where the proposal is received. In this case the proposal was here on Meta, and here the feedback was given.

If someone submits a project proposal and wants our feedback and support, the proposer must make sure that if we see concerns in the proposal that those are addressed first. If those concerns are solved by answering questions, providing information and improving the proposal, then WMBE can support the proposal. Of those concerns are not solved and we have still insufficient information, we can't express our support.

The Wikimedia Foundation asks us to follow basic principles, concerning the use of the name Wikimedia, how budget is spent, how we do our reporting, provide metrics, and more. This applies also to all the projects and activities under the wing of WMBE. All activities and projects need to be organised according to these basic principles so that we meet the conditions.

Again, let me be very clear: yes, WMBE is open to everyone, but from everyone we expect a decent proposal and our feedback taken seriously.

Again, let me be very clear: yes, Lionel is welcome in WMBE, if he provides the minimal information required, as we require from everyone for all activities and projects. As well as that we are, and our feedback is, taken seriously, and there is respect for the perspective other people have.

So if Lionel would write a new proposal and sends it to us tomorrow, and includes all the minimal required information, is willing to answer our questions, acknowledges the basic principles, and excludes references to earlier situations/etc, we give such proposal a fair review, and if it meets the minimal standards we also may support it. Romaine (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments on proposal

Hi Feronthomas Thank you for taking over discussion on this request. We would still like clarity on a number of issues.

As we understand this to be a Wikipedian-in-Residence, we want to clarify what we believe to be the most important characteristics of this type of project. Outreach wiki has a very good outline of what makes a good Wikipedian-in-Residence, but here are the components that we as essential for funding:

• Serves as a liaison between the organization and the Wikimedia community to promote a mutually beneficial cooperation.
• Works with organizational staff to digitize, compile, and organize resources that can be shared with the Wikipedia community.
• Facilitates the improvement of content by the Wikipedia community, rather than directly editing articles as a core goal.
• Coordinates events, such as Hack-a-Thons, Edit-a-Thons, or Backstage Passes, that bring Wikipedians on-site to work with staff on content creation and improvement.

Based on the above, we will need to see the following to fund this project:

1. Engagement from community members that have expressed their interest (preferably on wiki, but could also be in other forums like a mailing list) in working with the materials to be digitized during this project. It does not have to be WMBE board members, but can be other members of the local and/or global community. In order for the community to do this, it would be helpful to provide a prioritized list of the content to be digitized. Lionel provided this link as an example of the type of content held by the NGO, but what will be the specific content focus? We appreciate that Lionel has reached out to communities, but with no evidence of support we can't fund it.
2. A clear plan to organize events that facilitate engagement between the Louvain Coopération and the Wikimedia community.
3. Clarity around the issues of both paid editing and direct content creation. We asked this question above, but we are still not clear if any of the activities proposed in the grant will include elements of paid editing, which we cannot support. If a Wikipedian-in-Residence is provided with any amount of stipend, they cannot participate in direct content creation (writing articles, developing courses for Wikiversity, etc.). Their role (paid or unpaid) is to facilitate this content creation with the Wikimedia community and organizational staff.

We would also like to clarify the issue of requesting a stipend for Wikimedia-related work. There are projects where we do fund people’s time. According to our Rapid Grant guidelines, we can fund “Project management fees for concentrated work that could not be completed by volunteers or during non-working hours”. We would only consider covering any feeds for time if the issues above are resolved and we receive more clarity on the project.

With the above changes and clarifications, we hope that the goals and scope of the project will be more focused.

If it would be easier to talk through these issues on a call, please let us know and we can set one up this week.

Best, Alex Wang (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Message for Louvain Coopération

Hi Louvain Coopération, Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia!

Here in Belgium we as Wikimedia Belgium are active and are open to all kinds of projects and activities. Wikimedia Belgium is founded to support local volunteers and to work together with organisations that share the interest of sharing knowledge on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia platforms.

In Belgium and many other countries, the local Wikimedia affiliate helps organisations with working together with Wikipedia/Wikimedia, so that an organisation understands the basic principles of Wikipedia and the other platforms and that the collaboration goes as optimal as possible.

Recently a project proposal was submitted for a project at Louvain Coopération. It is a pity that we did not work together on the proposal, as the proposal as it is now has some issues and too many questions are still not answered. If we would have worked together, we could have helped you to make sure that the project has a clear description for others to understand what the project is about, as well as that all the information that is needed is provided. The current version of the proposal raises more questions than answers, and we miss still too much information, so at this point in time Wikimedia Belgium can't support the proposal, but maybe we can help you to make it better, so that the shared interest brings benefits for both Louvain Coopération and the Wikimedia movement.

Also we think it would be good to stay informed about the project, so we know how the collaboration with Wikipedia is going.

Probably the best way to get to know each other better and perhaps also work together, is to meet each other. A visit to your office is possible, but meeting in Brussels is a possibility as well.

We would be happy to hear from you! Romaine (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Romaine,

First of all, let me sincerely apologize for my very late answer. After some days-off I was back to work and had to deal with some kind of rush-work.

I also think that it would be a very good solution to meet each other to understand what we do and, overall, what we can do together. I propose that we go further fixing the date by email. If it s ok for you, you can reach me at : tferonlouvaincooperation.org.

Sincerely

Thomas

PS : please apologize for both my bad english and my lack of knowledge of the wikipedia's rules.

Hello Thomas, Thank you for your reaction! I am very happy that you responded, so it is possible to clear it all out and where possible we can start a nice collaboration. I will send you an e-mail. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Friendly Spaces Expectations review

Hello all. This is Patrick with the Support and Safety team. My colleagues in the Community Resources team asked me to look at the discussion here in regards to possible violations of the Friendly space expectations. There was a request to have commentary removed on those grounds. I have reviewed the posts - while I find that the discussion here has become heated and overly personalized, I don’t find comments here that meet the grounds for removal outlined in the expectations. I know that Alex Wang and Marti Johnson are working with participants to keep the discussion focused and civil going forward. If there is behaviour beyond what we see here that needs to be looked at (for instance: harassment on other projects, via email or on other websites), our team can review if reported to our cawikimedia.org email address. Thanks, Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok Patrick Earley (WMF), thank for your review. If you don’t find comments here that meet the grounds for removal outlined in the expectations, you can certainly understand than the Romaine attitude was very unpleasant for me and not really friendly. So, now I will remove this page from my watch list and try to forget this mishap. All the best for every one. Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 08:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)