Hi,
I want to take this opportunity to thank all Foundation staff involved in the office hour
that was organised today on this topic.
Thank you for being transparent and open in what was a difficult conversation for everyone
involved. Like everyone I wish that there was an easy solution, but there doesn’t seem to
be one.
But thank you for trusting us by showing vulnerability and explaining the reasoning that
led to this and some of the thinking going forward...
Regards
Jan-Bart de Vreede
PS: Also thank you to all those that attended or wrote on this topic and expressed their
(lack of) concerns. It is only through these discussions that we an grow as a movement and
rebuild trust.
On 27 Jun 2021, at 22:20, Christophe Henner
<christophe.henner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am just forking this thread so the title reflects the needed discussion and we avoid
derailling again to non directly / personal topics.
Le dim. 27 juin 2021 à 9:55 PM, Katherine Maher <katherine.maher(a)gmail.com
<mailto:katherine.maher@gmail.com>> a écrit :
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
<mailto:mdennis@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
<mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/U7NQL5CRIX2THMSPFH6DS2BSIPTHCKSU/>
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>--
Katherine R. Maher
katherine.maher(a)gmail.com <mailto:katherine.maher@gmail.com>
@krmaher <https://www.twitter.com/krmaher>
US: +1 203 858 7316
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l>
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/B45MK3D3IDFC6RTBKZ5ZKFAUKXKKBDZS/>
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org>_______________________________________________
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