Hi folks,
Leaving aside everything else for a minute, I want to reply to Maggie’s
statement regarding the T&S case here. As someone with direct and specific
knowledge of the issue, I feel responsibility to affirm Maggie’s version of
events.
Although we provided notice to the board that we were considering a
difficult T&S case regarding a well known admin on English Wikipedia, we
did not consult with the board on the case. When we made the determination,
following two warnings, to take action regarding the user, it was at the
recommendation of staff following an investigation that followed all
standard operating practices. The Board was not notified in advance of our
decision to move to action; something that was in line with existing
policies and IMHO, in line with an important distinction between governance
and operations, but also arguably may have contributed to some of the mess
that we’re all familiar with.
I have taken responsibility in various fora for this decision, and accepted
the subsequent criticisms, many of them legitimate, by community members. I
continue to bear that responsibility, and it is precisely because it was my
responsibility that I want to reiterate that there was no COI of María in
any capacity.
While I would handle that case somewhat differently were we to revisit it,
that is besides the point.
Whatever conversation the community wishes to have with Foundation
leadership about governance and this recent decision is up to the
community. However, I would encourage to avoid conflating these issues, as
there is no basis for the insinuation or accusation, and unnecessarily
muddies the waters for valid concerns.
Cheers,
Katherine
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 13:42 Maggie Dennis <mdennis(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi, everybody.
It’s Sunday, and there’s a lot of meetings today, and I wrestled with
whether to say this without necessarily having the full time to think about
all the ways I could say it wrong and potentially make misunderstandings
worse. We’re having a meeting on Tuesday specifically to discuss issues of
concern to people around this consultancy. But I’d like to openly address
the suggestion that María may have influenced a Trust & Safety case here.
First: it is against policy (and it is a policy I helped write and support
whole-heartedly) to talk about the specifics of Trust & Safety behavioral
investigations in public in order as much as possible to protect the
privacy and dignity of all involved. Public in this case includes even
among staff, most of whom have no need to know when a case is even under
review. We do discuss these cases with some volunteer groups who have
signed non-disclosure agreements, but even that is limited. Only recently
have we created a body who can review Trust & Safety case files on
appropriate appeal.
Given this policy, I’m going to have to be uncomfortably vague, but I want
to address and firmly deny rumors that any Board member has ever attempted
to influence Trust & Safety (T&S) to take office action (including
warnings) in relation to any behavioral investigation. (See the Meta
page, which includes a list of the individuals
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy>.) I know that my
saying so isn’t necessarily going to reassure folks. Some may think I’m
deluded, and some may think I’m lying, but for me silence on this point is
unacceptable.
Neither María nor any other trustee ever exerted any influence over any
Trust & Safety case. The Board does not provide guidance on how cases
should be handled unless asked (which is rare). Even executive staff do not
weigh in on Trust & Safety recommended approaches until an investigation
itself is complete and has been reviewed by an attorney.
I know this because I’ve been involved in one aspect or another in Trust &
Safety’s behavioral investigations since 2012, when we imposed our first
Foundation ban. Over the years, we have created a process by which
behavioral investigations may be launched by request from anyone; Trust &
Safety staff review all requests, no matter who makes it, to determine if a
request is within their mandate. If it is, they open a case.
Speaking candidly, in the 9 years I’ve been involved in this, I have seen
bias when issues touch on treatment of staff members or Board members or
those who are close to them. But it is a bias against taking action that
might make it look like the Foundation is trying to silence legitimate
criticism. Those of you who handle behavioral issues on our projects are
very aware that “trolls” are not our major problem. People who are hostile
with no reason are easily taken care of. The problem is when people who go
on the attack may have reason (even if only partial) to be unhappy. It’s
hard to address the way people approach problems independently of those
problems. It’s hard to say “You have a point, but you can’t handle it that
way” without some people seeing you as trying to avoid the point. But
there are some approaches to problems that are unacceptable. Staff, Board
members, and those who are close to them deserve reasonable protection,
too.
The involvement of anyone close to María in a behavioral investigation has
only been speculation by some in community. That makes it questionable for
me to say this, but I think it’s important to say: it is true that one of
the several people who reached out with concerns about Fram had a
connection to a member of the Board. This did have an impact on the case.
The impact it had was that Fram was given two warnings (about a year
apart) before we took office action instead of the more common one. (Fram has
acknowledged receiving warnings
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram>,
otherwise I would feel very uncomfortable noting this myself.)
Whether consulting with María at this moment and in this way is
appropriate or not is a discussion we will have on Tuesday. However, it
disturbs me to know that some people claim María acted inappropriately in
regards to a Trust & Safety case when I know better. Granted, I was on
leave when the final office action was enacted, but I was not on leave in
the months and years that preceded it and was not unaware of the
discussions surrounding that case. I wouldn’t feel very good about myself
as a person if I didn’t push back on that misimpression of her behavior in
that case and explain that (I fully and honestly believe) any bias goes the
other way.
As uncomfortable as it will make me, I will not respond to other questions
about this case in this venue, with this audience, although (as always) I
am happy to talk about Trust & Safety’s general approach with people and
will do so at other opportunities.
Best regards,
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
--
*Katherine R. Maher*
katherine.maher(a)gmail.com
@krmaher <https://www.twitter.com/krmaher>
US: +1 203 858 7316