KuboF Hromoslav, 20/07/2018 00:03: Indeed, or in Italian "chi non fa non sbaglia". I hope in the future Wikimania will be inclusive and able to foster collaboration between good spirited people even if they're "different". Which reminds me, these days some interesting things happened in Johannesburg around Mandela day. https://youtu.be/9P3c8wAETjc https://youtu.be/mviqiDKIqDc?t=2h13m10s Federico

Hi all, while I have much sympathy for Romaine, and cannot comprehend the decision with the available information, I do want to guard us to continue discussing this further here. We (even Romaine) have only a limited part of the information available to us. I trust that Romaine works with the very best intentions, and also that the Trust & Safety team has the best intentions in their implementation. I also trust that the team will make a full evaluation after Wikimania is completed as their default practice. As part of this conversation, both here online and offline, I seem to hear several people who are unhappy with how the policy is implemented. Let us also recognize that it is important to have a friendly space - and that this is a Hard Thing to accomplish. Agreeing or disagreeing in public with a decision while only having part of the information can only make that job harder and/or harm individuals. If you have beef with the policy and how it is implemented, I suggest that you try to set up a meetup with the Trust & Safety team, and you can have a conversation with them about the broader policy. They can perhaps share some rough broader statistics as part of that. Otherwise, it is probably more appropriate to have this online discussion after the conference has concluded, based on the policy and practices as a whole, and not an individual case. Just my two cents... Lodewijk On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:15 AM Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

I don't know Romaine personally but with the limited information I have it seems that a small series of incidents have been blown out of proportion. It saddens me that when asking to respect diversity and sensitivities, not all volunteers seem to have the same weight. People taking responsibilities also need to be taken care of, we cannot ask them to conform to fixed ideas, there should be some room to be oneself. As John said it is necessary that we are tolerant with small transgressions, otherwise we are creating a prison to ourselves based on the sensitivities of others. I only hope that this has been escalated progressively, and that there was an open communication at all stages of the process. Cheers, Micru On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:37 AM Luca Martinelli <martinelliluca(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non

Hi all I was disturbed when I read Romaine email. For all what is worth, I would like to outline I trust Romaine meant the best, appreciate his work for the community and the project, including what he has done during the previous wikimanias, am sad he has been removed from the team, and realize how unconfortable he may be right now. This said, I realized someone felt unconfortable enough to actually report Romaine. And that can not be dismissed. But I think irl meetings are important moments for some of us to actually touch, hug, kiss and I would thoroughly disappointing if this would stop because some people feel unconfortable with physical contact. Plus... in noisy environments, we need to get closer to one another to understand, especially when not primarily English speaking. And this is more unconfortable to some than to others. So, I am thinking that... whilst some of us put little stickers on our badges to indicate we do not want to be taken in picture, perhaps we need to consider also little stickers to put on our badges to indicate that we prefer "a certain physical distance" and warn others that we may be sensitive to closeness so they be aware it might be an issue ? Flo PS: feel free to hug me Le 20/07/2018 à 11:02, David Cuenca Tudela a écrit :

I have just read through the long thread of replies and I am appalled that Romaine was asked to "step down" for safety concerns of an individual (or several individuals?) arising from his standing too close or speaking too loud or whatever. Is THIS really a behaviour that can put someone at risk? And if a risk has been identified out of such, may we please be informed by the SuSa team not of the details, but at least of the supposed risk? Romaine is the first person I ever met at my first Wikimania (Mexico City) and he is always on his feet all day doing a million different things to facilitate the event. He is sweet, helpful, with a great sense of humour and I can't imagine that anyone who has been to so much as a single Wikimania would think otherwise. So, very plainly and openly, as we are accustomed in the open movement we so passionately follow, may we please have an explanation as to which "friendly space" code of conduct he has breached to deserve being asked to step down? And on top of that, being further stressed by the criticism that he has been e in ths thread? The only GOOD thing that I see as possibly resulting from this discussion was what Florence (if I recall correctly) suggested: a sticker indicating which people are offended by loud speaking and close proximity, so that,this doesn't happen again (a sticker which I will most certainly NOT be sporting on my badge) Romaine, a big THANK YOU for all that you do for Wikimanias. I always look forward to "brushing shoulders" with you. A big warm hug from your Greek friend :) Mina On Fri, 20 Jul 2018, 18:21 Federico Leva (Nemo), <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 20 July 2018 at 09:23, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote: I note that Romaine does not mention the team in his email, only that there was a "demand" that he stand down; he did not say who made this demand. Indeed, the only mention of the T&S team before yours was my call for them to support a member of the community who seems to feel he has been discriminated against because of the effects of his hearing issue. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Dear James, As I made clear in our conversation yesterday, this happened to me, but has can and could have happened to almost everyone of the other participants at this conference. Yes, we need to respect the privacy of the people who reported they were uncomfortable, and it is a very very very sad thing they have been uncomfortable. But this whole situation makes me very uncomfortable. I am trying to be always as friendly as possible, to help anyone the best as possible, it is sad for me to feel that we do not know any longer if you help someone if you are then still safe or getting reported about you. In the past 24 hours I have been touched (hands, hugs, hand on shoulder, etc) over 50 times by various people, many I know, some I don't. Only once I was asked if I was fine with it. In many regions in the world it is normal to shake hands, hug someone, etc etc. We do need to be aware of that in some cultures this is not common, as well as individuals do not find it comfortable. We also need to be aware that we as humans cannot switch off the way we are. We need to create a friendly space for *everyone*. To my feeling the focus is too much on not giving some people a bad feeling, but we also must respect the nature of people, how people normally are, because if we don't, we create an unfriendly space for them. Now too many people are scared to touch someone else, scared to make a mistake. That is bad. It is good to have awareness of cultural differences, it is good if everyone tries to respect each others personal space. It is not right that if someone tries to be nice, this gives a bad feeling to the other. If then someone gets punished ("action is taken"), we are putting the health of our community at risk. You said to me in our conversation yesterday that you do not recommend me to send the earlier mail I did send. I can understand why you ask this, but for my feeling I had no other choice. Every day many many people greet me and ask me how I am feeling. If I am feeling bad, I say so. I am too emotional to explain it to every one of them. A second reason I raised attention for what happened to me, is because the whole goal of the friendly space policy is to create a friendly space, while now it is actually an unfriendly space for many just because of the action you took. In my case, you say it is not punishment, but it has bad consequences that are only a placebo and do not help to solve the situation and certainly does not improve the situation. That is a very bad thing. The friendly space policy is intended to create a friendly space for everyone, now however many perceive an unfriendly space, that is a serious problem. We need to get a better and balanced situation in how is dealt with these situations. At this conference it might be a bit early to discuss the topic in general, but still I think it we need to be aware that this problem exist. I also think we need to have a dialogue in our movement about this kind of situations where people perceive harassment while the other has the best intentions. Romaine 2018-07-20 12:28 GMT+02:00 James Alexander <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:

I believe the best way to avoid this kind of situation in the future, is to have tags specifically to indicate a need for personal space or something. From what I have read so far, Romaine has done nothing "out of the ordinary" (based on my cultural perspective); and he doesn't deserve this kind of treatment/sanction/punishment/etc. I should also state that I have met Romaine a couple of times, and he is indeed a very nice man, who always means the best. Sam. On 25 Jul 2018 16:41, Deryck Chan &lt;deryckchan(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: This is the second time I remember that the Friendly Space Policy was invoked to remove a Wikimania attendee from a situation, presumably because of in-person misconduct on their part, where the removal was made public but the reason of removal was kept secret. The problem with such secretive invocations of Friendly Space is that it is very difficult, as Reem and others have pointed out, to not see this as a punishment. I understand that it is very difficult to balance the specific, personal sensitivities and cultural preferences of several hundred people from different cultures. But as this discussion has shown, it is counter-productive to use Friendly Space this way, because other Wikimaniacs are left worrying what the appropriate behaviour is supposed to be. I don't know the details of this incident because it wasn't public. But from what I know of Romaine from previous Wikimanias, I'm disappointed that this incident couldn't have been handled behind the scenes with T&S and the people involved. The fact that Romaine felt the need to go public about his removal as an organiser showed mis-handling of process. Well, actually the previous time was 6 years ago, so maybe we're doing well. We did try reforming the friendly space policy around 2013-14 but couldn't agree on something better at the time... The doors of improvement always stay open for the Wikimedia movement. --Deryck On 20 July 2018 at 11:28, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org<mailto:jalexander@wikimedia.org>> wrote: Hey all, I am, as always, sorry, that this has spilled out into the public sphere more I do not think that is ever a good thing as discussion of specific situations like this only serves to increase discomfort, make people feel even less safe and make victims of everyone. Event Safety and Friendly Spaces is a top priority of any conference whether big or small as well as one of the issues that can be most difficult to deal with since it is always a balance of situations, feelings and people who are frequently acting in good faith. I can confirm that Trust & Safety was involved here and, like most people who are working on Friendly Spaces, we never aim to take serious actions if we are able to avoid it. Most issues are dealt with by local attendees or organizing volunteers with only short reminders or chats and escalate from there only as things become more serious or repetitive. The same is true for T&S who generally doesn't even become involved until it is a larger situation. I will admit that whenever a local organizer or volunteer is involved the seriousness is increased some because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as in a position of influence and power which amplifies any and all issues that arise. It does not, however, change the focus of trying to take the least amount of actions possible. I will be the first to admit (and did when talking to Romaine yesterday) that he has done an enormous amount of great work for events and nothing we did was meant to demean that even if it felt that way to Romaine. Like any Friendly Spaces actions nothing we did was meant as a punishment (even though, again, I understand it can feel that way) but was done because we felt they were the best thing to do for event safety. I can certainly guarantee that the decision was not taken lightly. As many have noted the entire story is not out in the open and, honestly, won't be. I know that won't make everyone happy but unfortunately is almost always going to be the case for specific cases. If you want to speak about process questions and the like, the team (including myself) is certainly willing to do so. We have a table on the 2nd floor or you can grab one of us around the conference. James James Alexander Manager, Trust & Safety (Operations) Wikimedia Foundation

I hope that the WMF Trust & Safety dept will soon some with a roadmap how to effectively evaluate this process with examples we can actually discuss without violating privacy. (I made some suggestions in person, but will leave it in their capable hands to take a long overdue leadership role in this conversation). My main concern is that I heard too many people ridiculing the friendly space policy in the past week - mostly people who would likely never violate it, but seemingly no longer feel empowered by it, feel no longer that it represents a best practice they should hold people to. Maybe the phrasing was never to the standards that they held, maybe it is a recent development. But it's high time to review things together with the wider community. If a policy like this is not supported broadly, I doubt it will ever be a success. Lodewijk On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Deryck Chan &lt;deryckchan(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Unfortunately, almost every tool can be used as a weapon. Cheers, Peter From: Wikimania-l [mailto:wikimania-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra Sent: 29 July 2018 04:45 To: Wikimania general list (open subscription) Subject: Re: [Wikimania-l] Friendly Space Policy (was: Sad news) I think the problem is that many Wikimedians are very good at interpreting policies in to definite rules to suit their point of view, and we struggle to recognise that the spirit of a policy is more important. When that happens we write more complexity in to policies rather than keeping it simple and giving trust that we can reach reasonable outcomes. Simply stated the policy is; everyone should have the ability to contribute without fear, intimidation, or recrimination. everything that comes next become the tools for which to harness the power of these policies, there is never going to be a simple set of words to guide us because once we accept that someone has been harmed we then expect a response that lays blame with another who intern must be punished. Its this flip side that make the policy a joke because someone now has their ability to contribute laced with fear(I can say anything), intimidation(I cant do that again or I'll be sent packing) and recrimination(I cant do what I'm here to do and I wont be able to attend any future events). The safe space policy isnt meant to quell discussion, temper a persons enthusiasm, nor change their culture, it there solely to enable everyone to safely and freely contribute. On 29 July 2018 at 02:52, Lodewijk &lt;lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org&gt; wrote: I hope that the WMF Trust & Safety dept will soon some with a roadmap how to effectively evaluate this process with examples we can actually discuss without violating privacy. (I made some suggestions in person, but will leave it in their capable hands to take a long overdue leadership role in this conversation). My main concern is that I heard too many people ridiculing the friendly space policy in the past week - mostly people who would likely never violate it, but seemingly no longer feel empowered by it, feel no longer that it represents a best practice they should hold people to. Maybe the phrasing was never to the standards that they held, maybe it is a recent development. But it's high time to review things together with the wider community. If a policy like this is not supported broadly, I doubt it will ever be a success. Lodewijk On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM Deryck Chan &lt;deryckchan(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I look forward to "hug me" / "don't touch me" stickers being issued next year Q(^_^Q) Indeed we do "don't photograph me" stickers already so "personal space needed" stickers sound like a natural extension. Deryck (multicultural / "hug me") On 27 July 2018 at 15:31, Sam Oyeyele &lt;samoye_(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: I believe the best way to avoid this kind of situation in the future, is to have tags specifically to indicate a need for personal space or something. I should also state that I have met Romaine a couple of times, and he is indeed a very nice man, who always means the best. Sam. On 25 Jul 2018 16:41, Deryck Chan &lt;deryckchan(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: This is the second time I remember that the Friendly Space Policy was invoked to remove a Wikimania attendee from a situation, presumably because of in-person misconduct on their part, where the removal was made public but the reason of removal was kept secret. The problem with such secretive invocations of Friendly Space is that it is very difficult, as Reem and others have pointed out, to not see this as a punishment. I understand that it is very difficult to balance the specific, personal sensitivities and cultural preferences of several hundred people from different cultures. But as this discussion has shown, it is counter-productive to use Friendly Space this way, because other Wikimaniacs are left worrying what the appropriate behaviour is supposed to be. I don't know the details of this incident because it wasn't public. But from what I know of Romaine from previous Wikimanias, I'm disappointed that this incident couldn't have been handled behind the scenes with T&S and the people involved. The fact that Romaine felt the need to go public about his removal as an organiser showed mis-handling of process. Well, actually the previous time was 6 years ago, so maybe we're doing well. We did try reforming the friendly space policy around 2013-14 but couldn't agree on something better at the time... The doors of improvement always stay open for the Wikimedia movement. --Deryck On 20 July 2018 at 11:28, James Alexander &lt;jalexander(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: Hey all, I am, as always, sorry, that this has spilled out into the public sphere more I do not think that is ever a good thing as discussion of specific situations like this only serves to increase discomfort, make people feel even less safe and make victims of everyone. Event Safety and Friendly Spaces is a top priority of any conference whether big or small as well as one of the issues that can be most difficult to deal with since it is always a balance of situations, feelings and people who are frequently acting in good faith. I can confirm that Trust & Safety was involved here and, like most people who are working on Friendly Spaces, we never aim to take serious actions if we are able to avoid it. Most issues are dealt with by local attendees or organizing volunteers with only short reminders or chats and escalate from there only as things become more serious or repetitive. The same is true for T&S who generally doesn't even become involved until it is a larger situation. I will admit that whenever a local organizer or volunteer is involved the seriousness is increased some because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as in a position of influence and power which amplifies any and all issues that arise. It does not, however, change the focus of trying to take the least amount of actions possible. I will be the first to admit (and did when talking to Romaine yesterday) that he has done an enormous amount of great work for events and nothing we did was meant to demean that even if it felt that way to Romaine. Like any Friendly Spaces actions nothing we did was meant as a punishment (even though, again, I understand it can feel that way) but was done because we felt they were the best thing to do for event safety. I can certainly guarantee that the decision was not taken lightly. As many have noted the entire story is not out in the open and, honestly, won't be. I know that won't make everyone happy but unfortunately is almost always going to be the case for specific cases. If you want to speak about process questions and the like, the team (including myself) is certainly willing to do so. We have a table on the 2nd floor or you can grab one of us around the conference. James James Alexander Manager, Trust & Safety (Operations) Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l _______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l _______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l -- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8, UWAP, 2017. Error! Filename not specified. <https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8> Order here. Image removed by sender. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Image removed by sender. Virus-free. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com

Hi Mina, I intentionally started a new thread to be able to have a more abstract discussion about the general policy. I would highly appreciate it if you won't bring it back to the single case. Thank you. Lodewijk On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:48 AM Mina Theofilatou &lt;saintfevrier(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hi, I am very sad to see this happen. I think this is a case when we cannot gave a win-win implementation of the policy * On one hand, Romaine *has* to be close to a person he is talking to, otherwise he is unable to hear them. I know him, he really is. * On the other hand, in some cultures standing very close to a person who is not a friend can be really impolite. Some people prefer to keep more distance when they are talking to someone. (See  https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_space ) * On one hand, entering a room when someone needs an item urgently can be normal. A person quite legitimately may want to help as quickly as possible when they are asked to. * On the other hand, a person entering and immediately leaving the room can indeed be a significant distraction for a speaker. A speaker may come from a culture where such behaviour is considered impolite. We are all coming from different backgrounds, and what is normal for one person might be offensive to another. Looking forward, can we probably assume more good faith? We might not be aware what another person's background is, so perhaps we should begin with asking them why they are doing that and why you are not OK with that. Best regards, Mykola (NickK) --- Оригінальне повідомлення --- Від кого: "Lodewijk" &lt;lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org&gt; Дата: 20 липня 2018, 10:23:49 Hi all, while I have much sympathy for Romaine, and cannot comprehend the decision with the available information, I do want to guard us to continue discussing this further here. We (even Romaine) have only a limited part of the information available to us. I trust that Romaine works with the very best intentions, and also that the Trust & Safety team has the best intentions in their implementation. I also trust that the team will make a full evaluation after Wikimania is completed as their default practice.  As part of this conversation, both here online and offline, I seem to hear several people who are unhappy with how the policy is implemented. Let us also recognize that it is important to have a friendly space - and that this is a Hard Thing to accomplish. Agreeing or disagreeing in public with a decision while only having part of the information can only make that job harder and/or harm individuals. If you have beef with the policy and how it is implemented, I suggest that you try to set up a meetup with the Trust & Safety team, and you can have a conversation with them about the broader policy. They can perhaps share some rough broader statistics as part of that. Otherwise, it is probably more appropriate to have this online discussion after the conference has concluded, based on the policy and practices as a whole, and not an individual case.  Just my two cents... Lodewijk On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:15 AM Andy Mabbett &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; wrote: On 19 July 2018 at 20:30, Romaine Wiki &lt;romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: As someone with family members who are profoundly hard of hearing and affected by tinnitus, I am sorry to learn that you have been discriminated against in this way. I hope that whoever is responsible for our safe spaces policy will ensure that this does not happen to you - or anyone else - again. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l _______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

Hi, I think we need to consider that we have participants from different countries and hence different cultures. Touching might not be considered bad behaviour at all in one culture but could be completely unacceptable in another. E.g. in India it is very common for 2 male friends to walk with hands on eachother's shoulder or hand in hand, but when I first arrived in UK I learned that such intimacy is linked with particular group of males and hence not considered good in public. In my opinion, what someone personally feels about other's such gestures is entirely up to the individual, should not be generalised when we have a culturally diverse participants. Being little more tolerant or inclusive is all what we should learn and implement. Regards, Dhaval Vyas On Fri, 20 Jul 2018, 11:37 Sterkebak, &lt;sterkebak(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Please. Just. Stop.

I'm really sorry to deviate from the main topic, I made another thread so it would be less distractive. On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 1:24 PM Dhaval S. Vyas &lt;dsvyas(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Can I ask what's wrong with being "particular group of males" and how it makes it not "good in public"? I'm a member of this group of males that you don't even want to name them, gay people. Can moderators/people responsible in Wikimania take a look at this homophobic comment here? Best

Hello - I wouldn't claim to know anything about the specifics of what's happened here but did just want to respond to this: I work in an office where about 20% of the workforce are deaf or hard of hearing. I have never known a situation where someone feels they 'have' to be so close to someone to hear that the other party feels uncomfortable. There is plenty one can do to make life easier for a deaf friend or colleague (speak clearly, make eye contact, keep your face in full view, use plenty of body language...) but standing right next to them is not the normal way to do it. Thanks, Chris