Summary: Community-Tech asked for some "Projects" so that they could better report their Phabricator data via Phlogiston. As a member of Project-Creators, I created the Projects for them. Phabricator has a number of types of Project; I was thinking of them as traditional "tags," and so used that Project type. However, the guidelines for Wikimedia's Phabricator reserve that type for special uses, with an approval process. A volunteer moderator closed the new Projects and called for my permissions to be removed. Adding to the confusion, I only found out about that from a third party. After conversation, my permissions were not removed, and I got help re-categorizing the Projects appropriately.

Impacts:

• The tone of discussion was uncomfortable.
• Expenditure of several staff hours (10?) for what started as a routine, several-minute task.
• Delay of several days for Community-Tech's reporting effort.

Factors leading to the error:

• There was/is no formal training for creating Projects, but I got access quickly because my day-to-day work depended on it.
• "tagging" in other programs, such as Trello, is far less specific than Phab, so intuiting the training is essentially impossible.
• I had created Projects before, in the form of Sprints and Releases, and there was no feedback on those because they happened to fit into the guidelines naturally.
• I was sloppy, and didn't remember the guidelines page existed, probably because the link to it is on either this page (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T706) or Project-Creators, itself, neither of which I would ever need to visit again under normal circumstances.
• The guidelines were also glossed over during onboarding, likely because they are perceived as onerous and bureaucratic, and in the context of the onboarding-information-firehose, they fall off.
• Possibly, conflict between professional co-worker communication style and volunteer community anonymous communication styles.

@JAufrecht I think the above comment checks the first box in the description. I think the 2nd and 3rd box are bigger in scope than we initially thought.