Hello all,
On Saturday 15 June 2019 Wikimedia Belgium had its annual General Assembly in Brussels.
*New board* Two board members have indicated to step down: * Afernand74 * SPQRobin
We thank them for their work and valuable input in the past years! They remain available for advice to the board.
Two board members were up for re-election after their previous terms ended. Both board members have been re-elected without any votes against them, and they will keep serving Wikimedia Belgium in their roles. * Geertivp - president * Romaine - treasurer
One new board member has been elected without any votes against. * Taketa - long term Wikipedia editor and organiser of various activities
Welcome Taketa!
The rest of the board remains the same and the board continues the work and development of our chapter.
*Evaluation behaviour WMF* As board we have the obligation to inform the General Assembly and other stakeholders about the developments with our chapter, both the good developments as well as the bad developments.
A year ago, with our previous General Assembly, we were hopeful to resolve the issues we then had with on other organisation in the movement, the Wikimedia Foundation. Sadly we had to inform the General Assembly that instead of improvements, the behaviour of multiple individuals from the Wikimedia Foundation is below any standard. This concerns one member of the grants team and multiple members of the Trust and Safety team, as well as their supervisors.
On request of the Trust & Safety team no names are mentioned. Below is a summary of what happened.
*Case 1* In April 2017 the treasurer of Wikimedia Belgium (Romaine) spoke with our new grants staff member from the Wikimedia Foundation as WMBE was scheduled to change from successful project grants in 2017 and earlier years to Simple Annual Plan grants. During this meeting the plan for WMBE in 2018 was proposed and was fine for the grants staff member. In the Summer of 2017 this had been worked out, and with an online call our annual plan was considered fine. With the final submission in October 2017, our annual grants proposal was reviewed by the grants staff member from WMF, had some minor remarks we fixed, and was considered to be excellent.
In December 2017 we were informed that our grant request (suddenly) was, to summarise, complete wrong. It contained factual errors (like facts do not matter), inconsistencies, the comment that Wikimedia France and Wikimedia Netherlands could take everything over in Belgium, suggesting that Belgium has no culture (this is a serious insult to us), and much more. (For your reference: Wikimedia Belgium had over 90 events and activities in 2017, including a photo contest, education program, GLAM program with content donations, workshops and edit-a-thons, and more.)
It raised us a lot of questions, which we asked, but our grants member of WMF refused to seriously answer them.
Even with our lack of information and received insults, we tried to be constructive and before Christmas we proposed to the grants staff member that we would re-write during the Christmas holidays our annual plan (as the staff member had said many times we could improve it). With the e-mail following from the grants member of WMF this proposal was not rejected. So during the two weeks of the Christmas holidays we spent many days, together with the help from another experienced chapter representative, re-writing our annual plan. After the Christmas holidays, we were ready, and the response from the grants member from WMF was then that the re-written version could not be taken into account...
After some further e-mails with this staff member we concluded as WMBE mid January 2018 that a collaboration with this individual from WMF is impossible and we banned this individual from ever contacting us again and we never communicated ever with this person again.
The supervisor of this staff member has been informed by us about what happened, and refused to even investigate the situation.
A colleague from the staff member took over and we received our budget for 2018. Later during 2018 and 2019 this WMF staff member helped us very well with questions, provided useful feedback and the annual plan for 2019 which was approved. We are now happy with this collaboration.
*Case 2* During the Wikimedia Conference in April 2018 we still had many questions and our treasurer spoke with various other affiliates if they had advice, good practices, etc etc, so that we could improve our future annual plans. Instead of that good advice was given, they shared their similar bad experiences they had in the past years with our former grants person from WMF. Many of them indicated that they do not want the feedback/criticism to be public as they feel that their budget would be cut by WMF as result of it.
With multiple chapter representatives we started to collect the feedback so that we could come up with some recommendations for improvements for both the WMF processes regarding grants as well as recommendations for affiliates for how to write better annual plans.
Our former grants person from WMF heard about the initiative and started to tell bad (untrue) stories about WMBE's treasurer to bring him in discredit. Multiple people have testified that our former grants person was doing this, gossip like that WMBE's treasurer was planning to attack that grants person. The Trust & Safety team heard about it and drew immediately the conclusion that the gossip was true, without checking the facts, without even talking to any of the involved individuals, and asked WMBE's treasurer not to approach or contact the former grants person. (To be crystal clear: there was never ever a plan to contact the grants person from WMF at all.)
Even after the Trust & Safety team spoke with WMBE's treasure, the gossip continued, causing a very unsafe conference space. A member of the Trust & Safety team was later informed about the ongoing gossip and refused to take any action to stop it, indicating not to take it seriously.
*Case 3* During Wikimania 2018, WMBE's treasurer was asked to help the organisers of Wikimania in Cape Town to help and assist wherever needed. One of the tasks was to bring stuff from A to B on request. Everything seemed to go fine.
Halfway the conference, WMBE's treasurer was casually approached by a member of the Trust and Safety team with a question to have a chat. A second team member came and they took an elevator together. In the elevator the team members made jokes and were laughing. As soon as they were in the room, it was made clear that the Trust & Safety team had received complaints about WMBE's treasurer.
The main complaint was: being in the same (large) room as the grants member of WMF. The complainant was the grants member of WMF, and this person claimed that WMBE's treasurer had said something and that the grants member from WMF had been highly distressed resulting in not being able to do the presentation (later in that session) well.
The situation was that WMBE's treasurer was asked to bring something to a room where a session just started (such requests happen many times during the conference, the grants person who complained was not presenting at that time), the materials were handed to someone in the back of the room and he left the room silently as quickly as possible. Multiple people present in that session have testified that he did not speak while bringing materials to the room, and they also testified that the presentation by the grants person from WMF went reasonable well. Also, during lunch WMBE's treasurer was sitting somewhere very visible to everyone, where the grants person from WMF came standing next to the treasurer, approached from the front. If the grants person from WMF really gets highly distressed by his presence, this person would not have done that.
The Trust & Safety team blindly believed the statements made by their WMF colleague, the team did not ask witnesses in the room about what happened, all the information here above was provided to the Trust & Safety team, but the Trust & Safety team fully ignored this information and the witnesses who say otherwise.
Three additional anonymous complaints were: * speaking to loud * standing to close * having touched someone's hand/arm
It must be noted that *none* of the people that complained to the Trust & Safety team had indicated to WMBE's treasurer to experience anything as problem. Also, WMBE's treasurer has as disability that he hears less, does not hear well what the height of his volume is (but still trying to not to speak too loud), and with bad acoustics has to stand closer to people to hear them well. The Trust & Safety team was informed about this during the meeting. Also in the local culture where he comes from touching is a normal thing. Also many people that have been frequently with WMBE's treasurer at the conference have indicated that he did not speak too loud.
During the meeting the Trust & Safety team told that they already had informed everyone in the organising team that they demanded WMBE's treasurer must stop helping in organising Wikimania 2018, meaning that they already had drawn the conclusion even before speaking with him.
They also indicated that they "had to do something" so they could show the complainants that they do something when complaints are received, even while their decision did not solve/improve the complaints at all. The Trust & Safety team refused to think about real solutions, they refused to organise a dialogue to solve the complaints, they refused to mediate, they promised to organise a meeting with a supervisor, but that they never did. It also became clear they have zero feeling with people with autism. The Trust & Safety said they could not share any more information about what happened because of the privacy of the complainants.
During the conference WMBE's treasurer made it public, to prevent having to tell emotionally what happened, as well as for transparency reasons. This did not take away that he felt ever since that chat highly unsafe as result by the behaviour of the Trust & Safety team, and still continues up to today, as well as he also had been five weeks ill after the conference because of this.
Many people at the conference indicated to disagree with the decision of the Trust & Safety team, including WMF staff members and Wikimania's organising team. During the conference many of them approached the Trust & Safety team about it, various of them also proposing other solutions that. In these talks the Trust & Safety team shared a lot more details which they refused to share with WMBE's treasurer. Also the Trust & Safety team told that he had been warned before (which is not true), as well as exaggerating and framing what supposedly had happened.
*Afterwards* After Wikimania the Trust & Safety team received an e-mail from WMBE's treasurer with a more detailed overview of what happened, including the many witnesses who claim differently. But all of this was fully ignored by the Trust & Safety team. After the conference nothing had been heard from the Trust & Safety team, until mid December 2018.
In the first two weeks of December 2018 WMBE's treasurer received multiple e-mails from WMF staff members, including strangely in what was written a farewell and thank you for all the work. Apparently the Trust & Safety team had shared their new decision with other departments, while actual stakeholders were not informed.
About a week later both the treasurer of WMBE as the president of WMBE (but none of the other organisations he is active for) received an e-mail in what the Trust & Safety team indicates to have received further complaints: - First they refer to the situation in December 2017-January 2018 concerning the interaction with the former grants person from WMF. Apparently the Trust & Safety team fully has ignored all the insults at the address of our chapter and country. Also the e-mail reads largely like the grants person itself had written the e-mail. - Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to ever contact WMBE's former grants person at WMF (one way only!) (Even while WMBE had banned every contact with this person already in January 2018.) - And they forbid to have contact with WMF grants grants team for about two years. (Even while the contact with all the other members of the grants team was going fine, even receiving various compliments. )
Still it was decided by Wikimedia Belgium to keep WMBE's treasurer as treasurer of WMBE.
- Someone at the conference saw WMBE's treasurer with a mascot and asked the name of the mascot. Answer: "Wendy the Weasel", clearly indicating a female name. The question that followed was what the gender was of the mascot. WMBE's treasurer was thinking that this was just said, and replied that as there are no outer organs the mascot must be female. (Having asked around, in the part of the world where WMBE's treasurer lives this is not considered a problem, but maybe this is differently elsewhere and is there a taboo.) - Someone had indicated that WMBE's treasurer has been standing in the way of that person and blocking the complainants path at Wikimania. It was a space of about 1.5 to 2 metres, where also multiple other people where standing, and people passing by were asked question, but everyone who wanted to pass by could do so. - Someone has told that WMBE's treasurer would have said that he would visit conferences "to pick up girls". Everybody who knows WMBE's treasurer knows this is nonsense. Some contest: WMBE's treasurer has someone he loves in his home country with zero interest of that kind in anyone else, and falls in the category of LGBT+ and does not fall on the women at the conferences. It must be noticed extremely suggestive interpretations of other people (that do not have the regular impressions, like due being LGBT+), have far reaching effects as conclusions. Such is an insult. - Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to be present at events funded directly/indirectly by WMF for two years.
Again it must be noticed that the Trust & Safety team for the third time on a row refuses to talk with the individual who it concerns first, before drawing any conclusions. The Trust & Safety team comes in their e-mail with a lot of assumptions based on loose sand. They also claim that WMBE's treasurer fails to assume good faith. In an e-mail to the presidents of two chapters they said that "they know how he thinks", followed by a lot of nonsense and false claims. The Trust & Safety team does not assume good faith themselves if they write that.
The Trust & Safety team provided in their communication zero examples of where the Friendly Space Policy has been breached.
The situation of WMBE's treasurer and the Trust & Safety team has been reviewed by an independent professional with expertise in complaints handling. The conclusion of this expert: almost everything that the Trust & Safety team could have done wrong in handling complaints, they did do wrong. Many basic principles in complaint handling and conflict resolution have been ignored by the Trust & Safety team. In addition to this, they communicate very intimidating as well as with treats.
The way how they work/communicate gives the impression like a staff member of WMF is more worth than a volunteer from the community.
Two chapters have reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation, indicating that the way how the Trust & Safety team was operating is not appropriate, but WMF refuses to take these concerns seriously and has ignored this fully. Again the Trust & Safety team refuses to work together on actual solutions.
To summarise, feedback/information from WMBE's treasurer has been ignored by WMF, feedback from the president of WMBE has been ignored by WMF, feedback from the president and director of WMNL have been ignored by WMF, feedback from other staff members in WMF have been ignored by WMF, feedback from many community members from the movement have been ignored.
Because of the behaviour of the trust & Safety team that causes for everyone in the movement an unsafe place, WMBE's treasurer has decided to indefinitely stop attending WMF funded events.
At the General Assembly it was requested to request an internal audit in WMF to bring all the problems there to the light.
Am I right in thinking that this email, containing a long account of the alleged poor treatment of the Treasurer of WMBE, referred to throughout in the third person, was in fact written by that person?
The Turnip
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 10:00, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
On Saturday 15 June 2019 Wikimedia Belgium had its annual General Assembly in Brussels.
*New board* Two board members have indicated to step down:
- Afernand74
- SPQRobin
We thank them for their work and valuable input in the past years! They remain available for advice to the board.
Two board members were up for re-election after their previous terms ended. Both board members have been re-elected without any votes against them, and they will keep serving Wikimedia Belgium in their roles.
- Geertivp - president
- Romaine - treasurer
One new board member has been elected without any votes against.
- Taketa - long term Wikipedia editor and organiser of various activities
Welcome Taketa!
The rest of the board remains the same and the board continues the work and development of our chapter.
*Evaluation behaviour WMF* As board we have the obligation to inform the General Assembly and other stakeholders about the developments with our chapter, both the good developments as well as the bad developments.
A year ago, with our previous General Assembly, we were hopeful to resolve the issues we then had with on other organisation in the movement, the Wikimedia Foundation. Sadly we had to inform the General Assembly that instead of improvements, the behaviour of multiple individuals from the Wikimedia Foundation is below any standard. This concerns one member of the grants team and multiple members of the Trust and Safety team, as well as their supervisors.
On request of the Trust & Safety team no names are mentioned. Below is a summary of what happened.
*Case 1* In April 2017 the treasurer of Wikimedia Belgium (Romaine) spoke with our new grants staff member from the Wikimedia Foundation as WMBE was scheduled to change from successful project grants in 2017 and earlier years to Simple Annual Plan grants. During this meeting the plan for WMBE in 2018 was proposed and was fine for the grants staff member. In the Summer of 2017 this had been worked out, and with an online call our annual plan was considered fine. With the final submission in October 2017, our annual grants proposal was reviewed by the grants staff member from WMF, had some minor remarks we fixed, and was considered to be excellent.
In December 2017 we were informed that our grant request (suddenly) was, to summarise, complete wrong. It contained factual errors (like facts do not matter), inconsistencies, the comment that Wikimedia France and Wikimedia Netherlands could take everything over in Belgium, suggesting that Belgium has no culture (this is a serious insult to us), and much more. (For your reference: Wikimedia Belgium had over 90 events and activities in 2017, including a photo contest, education program, GLAM program with content donations, workshops and edit-a-thons, and more.)
It raised us a lot of questions, which we asked, but our grants member of WMF refused to seriously answer them.
Even with our lack of information and received insults, we tried to be constructive and before Christmas we proposed to the grants staff member that we would re-write during the Christmas holidays our annual plan (as the staff member had said many times we could improve it). With the e-mail following from the grants member of WMF this proposal was not rejected. So during the two weeks of the Christmas holidays we spent many days, together with the help from another experienced chapter representative, re-writing our annual plan. After the Christmas holidays, we were ready, and the response from the grants member from WMF was then that the re-written version could not be taken into account...
After some further e-mails with this staff member we concluded as WMBE mid January 2018 that a collaboration with this individual from WMF is impossible and we banned this individual from ever contacting us again and we never communicated ever with this person again.
The supervisor of this staff member has been informed by us about what happened, and refused to even investigate the situation.
A colleague from the staff member took over and we received our budget for 2018. Later during 2018 and 2019 this WMF staff member helped us very well with questions, provided useful feedback and the annual plan for 2019 which was approved. We are now happy with this collaboration.
*Case 2* During the Wikimedia Conference in April 2018 we still had many questions and our treasurer spoke with various other affiliates if they had advice, good practices, etc etc, so that we could improve our future annual plans. Instead of that good advice was given, they shared their similar bad experiences they had in the past years with our former grants person from WMF. Many of them indicated that they do not want the feedback/criticism to be public as they feel that their budget would be cut by WMF as result of it.
With multiple chapter representatives we started to collect the feedback so that we could come up with some recommendations for improvements for both the WMF processes regarding grants as well as recommendations for affiliates for how to write better annual plans.
Our former grants person from WMF heard about the initiative and started to tell bad (untrue) stories about WMBE's treasurer to bring him in discredit. Multiple people have testified that our former grants person was doing this, gossip like that WMBE's treasurer was planning to attack that grants person. The Trust & Safety team heard about it and drew immediately the conclusion that the gossip was true, without checking the facts, without even talking to any of the involved individuals, and asked WMBE's treasurer not to approach or contact the former grants person. (To be crystal clear: there was never ever a plan to contact the grants person from WMF at all.)
Even after the Trust & Safety team spoke with WMBE's treasure, the gossip continued, causing a very unsafe conference space. A member of the Trust & Safety team was later informed about the ongoing gossip and refused to take any action to stop it, indicating not to take it seriously.
*Case 3* During Wikimania 2018, WMBE's treasurer was asked to help the organisers of Wikimania in Cape Town to help and assist wherever needed. One of the tasks was to bring stuff from A to B on request. Everything seemed to go fine.
Halfway the conference, WMBE's treasurer was casually approached by a member of the Trust and Safety team with a question to have a chat. A second team member came and they took an elevator together. In the elevator the team members made jokes and were laughing. As soon as they were in the room, it was made clear that the Trust & Safety team had received complaints about WMBE's treasurer.
The main complaint was: being in the same (large) room as the grants member of WMF. The complainant was the grants member of WMF, and this person claimed that WMBE's treasurer had said something and that the grants member from WMF had been highly distressed resulting in not being able to do the presentation (later in that session) well.
The situation was that WMBE's treasurer was asked to bring something to a room where a session just started (such requests happen many times during the conference, the grants person who complained was not presenting at that time), the materials were handed to someone in the back of the room and he left the room silently as quickly as possible. Multiple people present in that session have testified that he did not speak while bringing materials to the room, and they also testified that the presentation by the grants person from WMF went reasonable well. Also, during lunch WMBE's treasurer was sitting somewhere very visible to everyone, where the grants person from WMF came standing next to the treasurer, approached from the front. If the grants person from WMF really gets highly distressed by his presence, this person would not have done that.
The Trust & Safety team blindly believed the statements made by their WMF colleague, the team did not ask witnesses in the room about what happened, all the information here above was provided to the Trust & Safety team, but the Trust & Safety team fully ignored this information and the witnesses who say otherwise.
Three additional anonymous complaints were:
- speaking to loud
- standing to close
- having touched someone's hand/arm
It must be noted that *none* of the people that complained to the Trust & Safety team had indicated to WMBE's treasurer to experience anything as problem. Also, WMBE's treasurer has as disability that he hears less, does not hear well what the height of his volume is (but still trying to not to speak too loud), and with bad acoustics has to stand closer to people to hear them well. The Trust & Safety team was informed about this during the meeting. Also in the local culture where he comes from touching is a normal thing. Also many people that have been frequently with WMBE's treasurer at the conference have indicated that he did not speak too loud.
During the meeting the Trust & Safety team told that they already had informed everyone in the organising team that they demanded WMBE's treasurer must stop helping in organising Wikimania 2018, meaning that they already had drawn the conclusion even before speaking with him.
They also indicated that they "had to do something" so they could show the complainants that they do something when complaints are received, even while their decision did not solve/improve the complaints at all. The Trust & Safety team refused to think about real solutions, they refused to organise a dialogue to solve the complaints, they refused to mediate, they promised to organise a meeting with a supervisor, but that they never did. It also became clear they have zero feeling with people with autism. The Trust & Safety said they could not share any more information about what happened because of the privacy of the complainants.
During the conference WMBE's treasurer made it public, to prevent having to tell emotionally what happened, as well as for transparency reasons. This did not take away that he felt ever since that chat highly unsafe as result by the behaviour of the Trust & Safety team, and still continues up to today, as well as he also had been five weeks ill after the conference because of this.
Many people at the conference indicated to disagree with the decision of the Trust & Safety team, including WMF staff members and Wikimania's organising team. During the conference many of them approached the Trust & Safety team about it, various of them also proposing other solutions that. In these talks the Trust & Safety team shared a lot more details which they refused to share with WMBE's treasurer. Also the Trust & Safety team told that he had been warned before (which is not true), as well as exaggerating and framing what supposedly had happened.
*Afterwards* After Wikimania the Trust & Safety team received an e-mail from WMBE's treasurer with a more detailed overview of what happened, including the many witnesses who claim differently. But all of this was fully ignored by the Trust & Safety team. After the conference nothing had been heard from the Trust & Safety team, until mid December 2018.
In the first two weeks of December 2018 WMBE's treasurer received multiple e-mails from WMF staff members, including strangely in what was written a farewell and thank you for all the work. Apparently the Trust & Safety team had shared their new decision with other departments, while actual stakeholders were not informed.
About a week later both the treasurer of WMBE as the president of WMBE (but none of the other organisations he is active for) received an e-mail in what the Trust & Safety team indicates to have received further complaints:
- First they refer to the situation in December 2017-January 2018
concerning the interaction with the former grants person from WMF. Apparently the Trust & Safety team fully has ignored all the insults at the address of our chapter and country. Also the e-mail reads largely like the grants person itself had written the e-mail.
- Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to ever contact WMBE's
former grants person at WMF (one way only!) (Even while WMBE had banned every contact with this person already in January 2018.)
- And they forbid to have contact with WMF grants grants team for about two
years. (Even while the contact with all the other members of the grants team was going fine, even receiving various compliments. )
Still it was decided by Wikimedia Belgium to keep WMBE's treasurer as treasurer of WMBE.
- Someone at the conference saw WMBE's treasurer with a mascot and asked
the name of the mascot. Answer: "Wendy the Weasel", clearly indicating a female name. The question that followed was what the gender was of the mascot. WMBE's treasurer was thinking that this was just said, and replied that as there are no outer organs the mascot must be female. (Having asked around, in the part of the world where WMBE's treasurer lives this is not considered a problem, but maybe this is differently elsewhere and is there a taboo.)
- Someone had indicated that WMBE's treasurer has been standing in the way
of that person and blocking the complainants path at Wikimania. It was a space of about 1.5 to 2 metres, where also multiple other people where standing, and people passing by were asked question, but everyone who wanted to pass by could do so.
- Someone has told that WMBE's treasurer would have said that he would
visit conferences "to pick up girls". Everybody who knows WMBE's treasurer knows this is nonsense. Some contest: WMBE's treasurer has someone he loves in his home country with zero interest of that kind in anyone else, and falls in the category of LGBT+ and does not fall on the women at the conferences. It must be noticed extremely suggestive interpretations of other people (that do not have the regular impressions, like due being LGBT+), have far reaching effects as conclusions. Such is an insult.
- Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to be present at events
funded directly/indirectly by WMF for two years.
Again it must be noticed that the Trust & Safety team for the third time on a row refuses to talk with the individual who it concerns first, before drawing any conclusions. The Trust & Safety team comes in their e-mail with a lot of assumptions based on loose sand. They also claim that WMBE's treasurer fails to assume good faith. In an e-mail to the presidents of two chapters they said that "they know how he thinks", followed by a lot of nonsense and false claims. The Trust & Safety team does not assume good faith themselves if they write that.
The Trust & Safety team provided in their communication zero examples of where the Friendly Space Policy has been breached.
The situation of WMBE's treasurer and the Trust & Safety team has been reviewed by an independent professional with expertise in complaints handling. The conclusion of this expert: almost everything that the Trust & Safety team could have done wrong in handling complaints, they did do wrong. Many basic principles in complaint handling and conflict resolution have been ignored by the Trust & Safety team. In addition to this, they communicate very intimidating as well as with treats.
The way how they work/communicate gives the impression like a staff member of WMF is more worth than a volunteer from the community.
Two chapters have reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation, indicating that the way how the Trust & Safety team was operating is not appropriate, but WMF refuses to take these concerns seriously and has ignored this fully. Again the Trust & Safety team refuses to work together on actual solutions.
To summarise, feedback/information from WMBE's treasurer has been ignored by WMF, feedback from the president of WMBE has been ignored by WMF, feedback from the president and director of WMNL have been ignored by WMF, feedback from other staff members in WMF have been ignored by WMF, feedback from many community members from the movement have been ignored.
Because of the behaviour of the trust & Safety team that causes for everyone in the movement an unsafe place, WMBE's treasurer has decided to indefinitely stop attending WMF funded events.
At the General Assembly it was requested to request an internal audit in WMF to bring all the problems there to the light. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Considering that it was sent by that person, one may reasonably conclude that it was written by them. That being said, I do not want to believe that it was not reviewed and approved by the governing board (assuming it was written by that person). BUT if it was written by another person, reviewed and approved by the board why is the involved person sending this email on behalf of WMBE? Just curious.
Regards,
Isaac
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:27 PM Thomas Townsend homesec1783@gmail.com wrote:
Am I right in thinking that this email, containing a long account of the alleged poor treatment of the Treasurer of WMBE, referred to throughout in the third person, was in fact written by that person?
The Turnip
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 10:00, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
On Saturday 15 June 2019 Wikimedia Belgium had its annual General
Assembly
in Brussels.
*New board* Two board members have indicated to step down:
- Afernand74
- SPQRobin
We thank them for their work and valuable input in the past years! They remain available for advice to the board.
Two board members were up for re-election after their previous terms
ended.
Both board members have been re-elected without any votes against them,
and
they will keep serving Wikimedia Belgium in their roles.
- Geertivp - president
- Romaine - treasurer
One new board member has been elected without any votes against.
- Taketa - long term Wikipedia editor and organiser of various activities
Welcome Taketa!
The rest of the board remains the same and the board continues the work
and
development of our chapter.
*Evaluation behaviour WMF* As board we have the obligation to inform the General Assembly and other stakeholders about the developments with our chapter, both the good developments as well as the bad developments.
A year ago, with our previous General Assembly, we were hopeful to
resolve
the issues we then had with on other organisation in the movement, the Wikimedia Foundation. Sadly we had to inform the General Assembly that instead of improvements, the behaviour of multiple individuals from the Wikimedia Foundation is below any standard. This concerns one member of
the
grants team and multiple members of the Trust and Safety team, as well as their supervisors.
On request of the Trust & Safety team no names are mentioned. Below is a summary of what happened.
*Case 1* In April 2017 the treasurer of Wikimedia Belgium (Romaine) spoke with our new grants staff member from the Wikimedia Foundation as WMBE was
scheduled
to change from successful project grants in 2017 and earlier years to Simple Annual Plan grants. During this meeting the plan for WMBE in 2018 was proposed and was fine for the grants staff member. In the Summer of 2017 this had been worked out, and with an online call our annual plan
was
considered fine. With the final submission in October 2017, our annual grants proposal was reviewed by the grants staff member from WMF, had
some
minor remarks we fixed, and was considered to be excellent.
In December 2017 we were informed that our grant request (suddenly) was,
to
summarise, complete wrong. It contained factual errors (like facts do not matter), inconsistencies, the comment that Wikimedia France and Wikimedia Netherlands could take everything over in Belgium, suggesting that
Belgium
has no culture (this is a serious insult to us), and much more. (For your reference: Wikimedia Belgium had over 90 events and activities
in
2017, including a photo contest, education program, GLAM program with content donations, workshops and edit-a-thons, and more.)
It raised us a lot of questions, which we asked, but our grants member of WMF refused to seriously answer them.
Even with our lack of information and received insults, we tried to be constructive and before Christmas we proposed to the grants staff member that we would re-write during the Christmas holidays our annual plan (as the staff member had said many times we could improve it). With the
following from the grants member of WMF this proposal was not rejected.
So
during the two weeks of the Christmas holidays we spent many days,
together
with the help from another experienced chapter representative, re-writing our annual plan. After the Christmas holidays, we were ready, and the response from the grants member from WMF was then that the re-written version could not be taken into account...
After some further e-mails with this staff member we concluded as WMBE
mid
January 2018 that a collaboration with this individual from WMF is impossible and we banned this individual from ever contacting us again
and
we never communicated ever with this person again.
The supervisor of this staff member has been informed by us about what happened, and refused to even investigate the situation.
A colleague from the staff member took over and we received our budget
for
- Later during 2018 and 2019 this WMF staff member helped us very
well
with questions, provided useful feedback and the annual plan for 2019
which
was approved. We are now happy with this collaboration.
*Case 2* During the Wikimedia Conference in April 2018 we still had many questions and our treasurer spoke with various other affiliates if they had advice, good practices, etc etc, so that we could improve our future annual
plans.
Instead of that good advice was given, they shared their similar bad experiences they had in the past years with our former grants person from WMF. Many of them indicated that they do not want the feedback/criticism
to
be public as they feel that their budget would be cut by WMF as result of it.
With multiple chapter representatives we started to collect the feedback
so
that we could come up with some recommendations for improvements for both the WMF processes regarding grants as well as recommendations for affiliates for how to write better annual plans.
Our former grants person from WMF heard about the initiative and started
to
tell bad (untrue) stories about WMBE's treasurer to bring him in
discredit.
Multiple people have testified that our former grants person was doing this, gossip like that WMBE's treasurer was planning to attack that
grants
person. The Trust & Safety team heard about it and drew immediately the conclusion that the gossip was true, without checking the facts, without even talking to any of the involved individuals, and asked WMBE's
treasurer
not to approach or contact the former grants person. (To be crystal
clear:
there was never ever a plan to contact the grants person from WMF at
all.)
Even after the Trust & Safety team spoke with WMBE's treasure, the gossip continued, causing a very unsafe conference space. A member of the Trust
&
Safety team was later informed about the ongoing gossip and refused to
take
any action to stop it, indicating not to take it seriously.
*Case 3* During Wikimania 2018, WMBE's treasurer was asked to help the organisers
of
Wikimania in Cape Town to help and assist wherever needed. One of the
tasks
was to bring stuff from A to B on request. Everything seemed to go fine.
Halfway the conference, WMBE's treasurer was casually approached by a member of the Trust and Safety team with a question to have a chat. A second team member came and they took an elevator together. In the
elevator
the team members made jokes and were laughing. As soon as they were in
the
room, it was made clear that the Trust & Safety team had received complaints about WMBE's treasurer.
The main complaint was: being in the same (large) room as the grants
member
of WMF. The complainant was the grants member of WMF, and this person claimed that WMBE's treasurer had said something and that the grants
member
from WMF had been highly distressed resulting in not being able to do the presentation (later in that session) well.
The situation was that WMBE's treasurer was asked to bring something to a room where a session just started (such requests happen many times during the conference, the grants person who complained was not presenting at
that
time), the materials were handed to someone in the back of the room and
he
left the room silently as quickly as possible. Multiple people present in that session have testified that he did not speak while bringing
materials
to the room, and they also testified that the presentation by the grants person from WMF went reasonable well. Also, during lunch WMBE's treasurer was sitting somewhere very visible to everyone, where the grants person from WMF came standing next to the treasurer, approached from the front. If the grants person from WMF
really
gets highly distressed by his presence, this person would not have done that.
The Trust & Safety team blindly believed the statements made by their WMF colleague, the team did not ask witnesses in the room about what
happened,
all the information here above was provided to the Trust & Safety team,
but
the Trust & Safety team fully ignored this information and the witnesses who say otherwise.
Three additional anonymous complaints were:
- speaking to loud
- standing to close
- having touched someone's hand/arm
It must be noted that *none* of the people that complained to the Trust & Safety team had indicated to WMBE's treasurer to experience anything as problem. Also, WMBE's treasurer has as disability that he hears less, does not
hear
well what the height of his volume is (but still trying to not to speak
too
loud), and with bad acoustics has to stand closer to people to hear them well. The Trust & Safety team was informed about this during the meeting. Also in the local culture where he comes from touching is a normal thing. Also many people that have been frequently with WMBE's treasurer at the conference have indicated that he did not speak too loud.
During the meeting the Trust & Safety team told that they already had informed everyone in the organising team that they demanded WMBE's treasurer must stop helping in organising Wikimania 2018, meaning that
they
already had drawn the conclusion even before speaking with him.
They also indicated that they "had to do something" so they could show the complainants that they do something when complaints are received, even while their decision did not solve/improve the complaints at all. The Trust & Safety team refused to think about real solutions, they refused to organise a dialogue to solve the complaints, they refused to mediate, they promised
to
organise a meeting with a supervisor, but that they never did. It also became clear they have zero feeling with people with autism. The Trust & Safety said they could not share any more information about what happened because of the privacy of the complainants.
During the conference WMBE's treasurer made it public, to prevent having
to
tell emotionally what happened, as well as for transparency reasons. This did not take away that he felt ever since that chat highly unsafe as
result
by the behaviour of the Trust & Safety team, and still continues up to today, as well as he also had been five weeks ill after the conference because of this.
Many people at the conference indicated to disagree with the decision of the Trust & Safety team, including WMF staff members and Wikimania's organising team. During the conference many of them approached the Trust
&
Safety team about it, various of them also proposing other solutions
that.
In these talks the Trust & Safety team shared a lot more details which
they
refused to share with WMBE's treasurer. Also the Trust & Safety team told that he had been warned before (which is not true), as well as
exaggerating
and framing what supposedly had happened.
*Afterwards* After Wikimania the Trust & Safety team received an e-mail from WMBE's treasurer with a more detailed overview of what happened, including the many witnesses who claim differently. But all of this was fully ignored
by
the Trust & Safety team. After the conference nothing had been heard from the Trust & Safety team, until mid December 2018.
In the first two weeks of December 2018 WMBE's treasurer received
multiple
e-mails from WMF staff members, including strangely in what was written a farewell and thank you for all the work. Apparently the Trust & Safety
team
had shared their new decision with other departments, while actual stakeholders were not informed.
About a week later both the treasurer of WMBE as the president of WMBE
(but
none of the other organisations he is active for) received an e-mail in what the Trust & Safety team indicates to have received further
complaints:
- First they refer to the situation in December 2017-January 2018
concerning the interaction with the former grants person from WMF. Apparently the Trust & Safety team fully has ignored all the insults at
the
address of our chapter and country. Also the e-mail reads largely like
the
grants person itself had written the e-mail.
- Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to ever contact WMBE's
former grants person at WMF (one way only!) (Even while WMBE had banned every contact with this person already in January 2018.)
- And they forbid to have contact with WMF grants grants team for about
two
years. (Even while the contact with all the other members of the grants team was going fine, even receiving various compliments. )
Still it was decided by Wikimedia Belgium to keep WMBE's treasurer as treasurer of WMBE.
- Someone at the conference saw WMBE's treasurer with a mascot and asked
the name of the mascot. Answer: "Wendy the Weasel", clearly indicating a female name. The question that followed was what the gender was of the mascot. WMBE's treasurer was thinking that this was just said, and
replied
that as there are no outer organs the mascot must be female. (Having
asked
around, in the part of the world where WMBE's treasurer lives this is not considered a problem, but maybe this is differently elsewhere and is
there
a taboo.)
- Someone had indicated that WMBE's treasurer has been standing in the
way
of that person and blocking the complainants path at Wikimania. It was a space of about 1.5 to 2 metres, where also multiple other people where standing, and people passing by were asked question, but everyone who wanted to pass by could do so.
- Someone has told that WMBE's treasurer would have said that he would
visit conferences "to pick up girls". Everybody who knows WMBE's
treasurer
knows this is nonsense. Some contest: WMBE's treasurer has someone he
loves
in his home country with zero interest of that kind in anyone else, and falls in the category of LGBT+ and does not fall on the women at the conferences. It must be noticed extremely suggestive interpretations of other people (that do not have the regular impressions, like due being LGBT+), have far reaching effects as conclusions. Such is an insult.
- Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to be present at events
funded directly/indirectly by WMF for two years.
Again it must be noticed that the Trust & Safety team for the third time
on
a row refuses to talk with the individual who it concerns first, before drawing any conclusions. The Trust & Safety team comes in their e-mail
with
a lot of assumptions based on loose sand. They also claim that WMBE's treasurer fails to assume good faith. In an e-mail to the presidents of two chapters they said that "they know how he thinks", followed by a lot of nonsense and false claims. The
Trust &
Safety team does not assume good faith themselves if they write that.
The Trust & Safety team provided in their communication zero examples of where the Friendly Space Policy has been breached.
The situation of WMBE's treasurer and the Trust & Safety team has been reviewed by an independent professional with expertise in complaints handling. The conclusion of this expert: almost everything that the
Trust &
Safety team could have done wrong in handling complaints, they did do wrong. Many basic principles in complaint handling and conflict
resolution
have been ignored by the Trust & Safety team. In addition to this, they communicate very intimidating as well as with treats.
The way how they work/communicate gives the impression like a staff
member
of WMF is more worth than a volunteer from the community.
Two chapters have reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation, indicating
that
the way how the Trust & Safety team was operating is not appropriate, but WMF refuses to take these concerns seriously and has ignored this fully. Again the Trust & Safety team refuses to work together on actual
solutions.
To summarise, feedback/information from WMBE's treasurer has been ignored by WMF, feedback from the president of WMBE has been ignored by WMF, feedback from the president and director of WMNL have been ignored by
WMF,
feedback from other staff members in WMF have been ignored by WMF,
feedback
from many community members from the movement have been ignored.
Because of the behaviour of the trust & Safety team that causes for everyone in the movement an unsafe place, WMBE's treasurer has decided to indefinitely stop attending WMF funded events.
At the General Assembly it was requested to request an internal audit in WMF to bring all the problems there to the light. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I understand it as an official message from WMBE emanating from their last General Assembly, posted by one of the board members on behalf of the chapter. But probably it should have been posted by another person, indeed, to avoid confusion.
Paulo
Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019 à(s) 15:32:
Considering that it was sent by that person, one may reasonably conclude that it was written by them. That being said, I do not want to believe that it was not reviewed and approved by the governing board (assuming it was written by that person). BUT if it was written by another person, reviewed and approved by the board why is the involved person sending this email on behalf of WMBE? Just curious.
Regards,
Isaac
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:27 PM Thomas Townsend homesec1783@gmail.com wrote:
Am I right in thinking that this email, containing a long account of the alleged poor treatment of the Treasurer of WMBE, referred to throughout in the third person, was in fact written by that person?
The Turnip
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 10:00, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello all,
On Saturday 15 June 2019 Wikimedia Belgium had its annual General
Assembly
in Brussels.
*New board* Two board members have indicated to step down:
- Afernand74
- SPQRobin
We thank them for their work and valuable input in the past years! They remain available for advice to the board.
Two board members were up for re-election after their previous terms
ended.
Both board members have been re-elected without any votes against them,
and
they will keep serving Wikimedia Belgium in their roles.
- Geertivp - president
- Romaine - treasurer
One new board member has been elected without any votes against.
- Taketa - long term Wikipedia editor and organiser of various
activities
Welcome Taketa!
The rest of the board remains the same and the board continues the work
and
development of our chapter.
*Evaluation behaviour WMF* As board we have the obligation to inform the General Assembly and
other
stakeholders about the developments with our chapter, both the good developments as well as the bad developments.
A year ago, with our previous General Assembly, we were hopeful to
resolve
the issues we then had with on other organisation in the movement, the Wikimedia Foundation. Sadly we had to inform the General Assembly that instead of improvements, the behaviour of multiple individuals from the Wikimedia Foundation is below any standard. This concerns one member of
the
grants team and multiple members of the Trust and Safety team, as well
as
their supervisors.
On request of the Trust & Safety team no names are mentioned. Below is
a
summary of what happened.
*Case 1* In April 2017 the treasurer of Wikimedia Belgium (Romaine) spoke with
our
new grants staff member from the Wikimedia Foundation as WMBE was
scheduled
to change from successful project grants in 2017 and earlier years to Simple Annual Plan grants. During this meeting the plan for WMBE in
2018
was proposed and was fine for the grants staff member. In the Summer of 2017 this had been worked out, and with an online call our annual plan
was
considered fine. With the final submission in October 2017, our annual grants proposal was reviewed by the grants staff member from WMF, had
some
minor remarks we fixed, and was considered to be excellent.
In December 2017 we were informed that our grant request (suddenly)
was,
to
summarise, complete wrong. It contained factual errors (like facts do
not
matter), inconsistencies, the comment that Wikimedia France and
Wikimedia
Netherlands could take everything over in Belgium, suggesting that
Belgium
has no culture (this is a serious insult to us), and much more. (For your reference: Wikimedia Belgium had over 90 events and
activities
in
2017, including a photo contest, education program, GLAM program with content donations, workshops and edit-a-thons, and more.)
It raised us a lot of questions, which we asked, but our grants member
of
WMF refused to seriously answer them.
Even with our lack of information and received insults, we tried to be constructive and before Christmas we proposed to the grants staff
member
that we would re-write during the Christmas holidays our annual plan
(as
the staff member had said many times we could improve it). With the
following from the grants member of WMF this proposal was not rejected.
So
during the two weeks of the Christmas holidays we spent many days,
together
with the help from another experienced chapter representative,
re-writing
our annual plan. After the Christmas holidays, we were ready, and the response from the grants member from WMF was then that the re-written version could not be taken into account...
After some further e-mails with this staff member we concluded as WMBE
mid
January 2018 that a collaboration with this individual from WMF is impossible and we banned this individual from ever contacting us again
and
we never communicated ever with this person again.
The supervisor of this staff member has been informed by us about what happened, and refused to even investigate the situation.
A colleague from the staff member took over and we received our budget
for
- Later during 2018 and 2019 this WMF staff member helped us very
well
with questions, provided useful feedback and the annual plan for 2019
which
was approved. We are now happy with this collaboration.
*Case 2* During the Wikimedia Conference in April 2018 we still had many
questions
and our treasurer spoke with various other affiliates if they had
advice,
good practices, etc etc, so that we could improve our future annual
plans.
Instead of that good advice was given, they shared their similar bad experiences they had in the past years with our former grants person
from
WMF. Many of them indicated that they do not want the
feedback/criticism
to
be public as they feel that their budget would be cut by WMF as result
of
it.
With multiple chapter representatives we started to collect the
feedback
so
that we could come up with some recommendations for improvements for
both
the WMF processes regarding grants as well as recommendations for affiliates for how to write better annual plans.
Our former grants person from WMF heard about the initiative and
started
to
tell bad (untrue) stories about WMBE's treasurer to bring him in
discredit.
Multiple people have testified that our former grants person was doing this, gossip like that WMBE's treasurer was planning to attack that
grants
person. The Trust & Safety team heard about it and drew immediately the conclusion that the gossip was true, without checking the facts,
without
even talking to any of the involved individuals, and asked WMBE's
treasurer
not to approach or contact the former grants person. (To be crystal
clear:
there was never ever a plan to contact the grants person from WMF at
all.)
Even after the Trust & Safety team spoke with WMBE's treasure, the
gossip
continued, causing a very unsafe conference space. A member of the
Trust
&
Safety team was later informed about the ongoing gossip and refused to
take
any action to stop it, indicating not to take it seriously.
*Case 3* During Wikimania 2018, WMBE's treasurer was asked to help the
organisers
of
Wikimania in Cape Town to help and assist wherever needed. One of the
tasks
was to bring stuff from A to B on request. Everything seemed to go
fine.
Halfway the conference, WMBE's treasurer was casually approached by a member of the Trust and Safety team with a question to have a chat. A second team member came and they took an elevator together. In the
elevator
the team members made jokes and were laughing. As soon as they were in
the
room, it was made clear that the Trust & Safety team had received complaints about WMBE's treasurer.
The main complaint was: being in the same (large) room as the grants
member
of WMF. The complainant was the grants member of WMF, and this person claimed that WMBE's treasurer had said something and that the grants
member
from WMF had been highly distressed resulting in not being able to do
the
presentation (later in that session) well.
The situation was that WMBE's treasurer was asked to bring something
to a
room where a session just started (such requests happen many times
during
the conference, the grants person who complained was not presenting at
that
time), the materials were handed to someone in the back of the room and
he
left the room silently as quickly as possible. Multiple people present
in
that session have testified that he did not speak while bringing
materials
to the room, and they also testified that the presentation by the
grants
person from WMF went reasonable well. Also, during lunch WMBE's treasurer was sitting somewhere very visible
to
everyone, where the grants person from WMF came standing next to the treasurer, approached from the front. If the grants person from WMF
really
gets highly distressed by his presence, this person would not have done that.
The Trust & Safety team blindly believed the statements made by their
WMF
colleague, the team did not ask witnesses in the room about what
happened,
all the information here above was provided to the Trust & Safety team,
but
the Trust & Safety team fully ignored this information and the
witnesses
who say otherwise.
Three additional anonymous complaints were:
- speaking to loud
- standing to close
- having touched someone's hand/arm
It must be noted that *none* of the people that complained to the
Trust &
Safety team had indicated to WMBE's treasurer to experience anything as problem. Also, WMBE's treasurer has as disability that he hears less, does not
hear
well what the height of his volume is (but still trying to not to speak
too
loud), and with bad acoustics has to stand closer to people to hear
them
well. The Trust & Safety team was informed about this during the
meeting.
Also in the local culture where he comes from touching is a normal
thing.
Also many people that have been frequently with WMBE's treasurer at the conference have indicated that he did not speak too loud.
During the meeting the Trust & Safety team told that they already had informed everyone in the organising team that they demanded WMBE's treasurer must stop helping in organising Wikimania 2018, meaning that
they
already had drawn the conclusion even before speaking with him.
They also indicated that they "had to do something" so they could show the complainants that they do something when complaints are received, even while their decision did not solve/improve the complaints at all. The Trust &
Safety
team refused to think about real solutions, they refused to organise a dialogue to solve the complaints, they refused to mediate, they
promised
to
organise a meeting with a supervisor, but that they never did. It also became clear they have zero feeling with people with autism. The Trust
&
Safety said they could not share any more information about what
happened
because of the privacy of the complainants.
During the conference WMBE's treasurer made it public, to prevent
having
to
tell emotionally what happened, as well as for transparency reasons.
This
did not take away that he felt ever since that chat highly unsafe as
result
by the behaviour of the Trust & Safety team, and still continues up to today, as well as he also had been five weeks ill after the conference because of this.
Many people at the conference indicated to disagree with the decision
of
the Trust & Safety team, including WMF staff members and Wikimania's organising team. During the conference many of them approached the
Trust
&
Safety team about it, various of them also proposing other solutions
that.
In these talks the Trust & Safety team shared a lot more details which
they
refused to share with WMBE's treasurer. Also the Trust & Safety team
told
that he had been warned before (which is not true), as well as
exaggerating
and framing what supposedly had happened.
*Afterwards* After Wikimania the Trust & Safety team received an e-mail from WMBE's treasurer with a more detailed overview of what happened, including the many witnesses who claim differently. But all of this was fully ignored
by
the Trust & Safety team. After the conference nothing had been heard
from
the Trust & Safety team, until mid December 2018.
In the first two weeks of December 2018 WMBE's treasurer received
multiple
e-mails from WMF staff members, including strangely in what was
written a
farewell and thank you for all the work. Apparently the Trust & Safety
team
had shared their new decision with other departments, while actual stakeholders were not informed.
About a week later both the treasurer of WMBE as the president of WMBE
(but
none of the other organisations he is active for) received an e-mail in what the Trust & Safety team indicates to have received further
complaints:
- First they refer to the situation in December 2017-January 2018
concerning the interaction with the former grants person from WMF. Apparently the Trust & Safety team fully has ignored all the insults at
the
address of our chapter and country. Also the e-mail reads largely like
the
grants person itself had written the e-mail.
- Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to ever contact WMBE's
former grants person at WMF (one way only!) (Even while WMBE had banned every contact with this person already in January 2018.)
- And they forbid to have contact with WMF grants grants team for about
two
years. (Even while the contact with all the other members of the grants team was going fine, even receiving various compliments. )
Still it was decided by Wikimedia Belgium to keep WMBE's treasurer as treasurer of WMBE.
- Someone at the conference saw WMBE's treasurer with a mascot and
asked
the name of the mascot. Answer: "Wendy the Weasel", clearly indicating
a
female name. The question that followed was what the gender was of the mascot. WMBE's treasurer was thinking that this was just said, and
replied
that as there are no outer organs the mascot must be female. (Having
asked
around, in the part of the world where WMBE's treasurer lives this is
not
considered a problem, but maybe this is differently elsewhere and is
there
a taboo.)
- Someone had indicated that WMBE's treasurer has been standing in the
way
of that person and blocking the complainants path at Wikimania. It was
a
space of about 1.5 to 2 metres, where also multiple other people where standing, and people passing by were asked question, but everyone who wanted to pass by could do so.
- Someone has told that WMBE's treasurer would have said that he would
visit conferences "to pick up girls". Everybody who knows WMBE's
treasurer
knows this is nonsense. Some contest: WMBE's treasurer has someone he
loves
in his home country with zero interest of that kind in anyone else, and falls in the category of LGBT+ and does not fall on the women at the conferences. It must be noticed extremely suggestive interpretations of other people (that do not have the regular impressions, like due being LGBT+), have far reaching effects as conclusions. Such is an insult.
- Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to be present at events
funded directly/indirectly by WMF for two years.
Again it must be noticed that the Trust & Safety team for the third
time
on
a row refuses to talk with the individual who it concerns first, before drawing any conclusions. The Trust & Safety team comes in their e-mail
with
a lot of assumptions based on loose sand. They also claim that WMBE's treasurer fails to assume good faith. In an e-mail to the presidents of two chapters they said that "they
know
how he thinks", followed by a lot of nonsense and false claims. The
Trust &
Safety team does not assume good faith themselves if they write that.
The Trust & Safety team provided in their communication zero examples
of
where the Friendly Space Policy has been breached.
The situation of WMBE's treasurer and the Trust & Safety team has been reviewed by an independent professional with expertise in complaints handling. The conclusion of this expert: almost everything that the
Trust &
Safety team could have done wrong in handling complaints, they did do wrong. Many basic principles in complaint handling and conflict
resolution
have been ignored by the Trust & Safety team. In addition to this, they communicate very intimidating as well as with treats.
The way how they work/communicate gives the impression like a staff
member
of WMF is more worth than a volunteer from the community.
Two chapters have reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation, indicating
that
the way how the Trust & Safety team was operating is not appropriate,
but
WMF refuses to take these concerns seriously and has ignored this
fully.
Again the Trust & Safety team refuses to work together on actual
solutions.
To summarise, feedback/information from WMBE's treasurer has been
ignored
by WMF, feedback from the president of WMBE has been ignored by WMF, feedback from the president and director of WMNL have been ignored by
WMF,
feedback from other staff members in WMF have been ignored by WMF,
feedback
from many community members from the movement have been ignored.
Because of the behaviour of the trust & Safety team that causes for everyone in the movement an unsafe place, WMBE's treasurer has decided to indefinitely stop attending WMF funded events.
At the General Assembly it was requested to request an internal audit
in
WMF to bring all the problems there to the light. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi all,
I have no opinion whatsoever about all the things going on in this mail, except for this part :
Three additional anonymous complaints were: * speaking to loud * standing to close * having touched someone's hand/arm
It must be noted that *none* of the people that complained to the Trust & Safety team had indicated to WMBE's treasurer to experience anything as problem.
You did not just "touched my hand/arm", you took MY stuff from my hands, and for both medical and personnal reasons which I do not wish to share on a public list, it was a bad experience for me, and maybe I didn't *say* anything, but I was visibly distressed. I assumed good faith from you and accepted your apologizes later in private, but I really do not appreciate having this particular incident discussed here and being forced to step up like that.
Caroline
Le lun. 17 juin 2019 à 11:00, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com a écrit :
Hello all,
On Saturday 15 June 2019 Wikimedia Belgium had its annual General Assembly in Brussels.
*New board* Two board members have indicated to step down:
- Afernand74
- SPQRobin
We thank them for their work and valuable input in the past years! They remain available for advice to the board.
Two board members were up for re-election after their previous terms ended. Both board members have been re-elected without any votes against them, and they will keep serving Wikimedia Belgium in their roles.
- Geertivp - president
- Romaine - treasurer
One new board member has been elected without any votes against.
- Taketa - long term Wikipedia editor and organiser of various activities
Welcome Taketa!
The rest of the board remains the same and the board continues the work and development of our chapter.
*Evaluation behaviour WMF* As board we have the obligation to inform the General Assembly and other stakeholders about the developments with our chapter, both the good developments as well as the bad developments.
A year ago, with our previous General Assembly, we were hopeful to resolve the issues we then had with on other organisation in the movement, the Wikimedia Foundation. Sadly we had to inform the General Assembly that instead of improvements, the behaviour of multiple individuals from the Wikimedia Foundation is below any standard. This concerns one member of the grants team and multiple members of the Trust and Safety team, as well as their supervisors.
On request of the Trust & Safety team no names are mentioned. Below is a summary of what happened.
*Case 1* In April 2017 the treasurer of Wikimedia Belgium (Romaine) spoke with our new grants staff member from the Wikimedia Foundation as WMBE was scheduled to change from successful project grants in 2017 and earlier years to Simple Annual Plan grants. During this meeting the plan for WMBE in 2018 was proposed and was fine for the grants staff member. In the Summer of 2017 this had been worked out, and with an online call our annual plan was considered fine. With the final submission in October 2017, our annual grants proposal was reviewed by the grants staff member from WMF, had some minor remarks we fixed, and was considered to be excellent.
In December 2017 we were informed that our grant request (suddenly) was, to summarise, complete wrong. It contained factual errors (like facts do not matter), inconsistencies, the comment that Wikimedia France and Wikimedia Netherlands could take everything over in Belgium, suggesting that Belgium has no culture (this is a serious insult to us), and much more. (For your reference: Wikimedia Belgium had over 90 events and activities in 2017, including a photo contest, education program, GLAM program with content donations, workshops and edit-a-thons, and more.)
It raised us a lot of questions, which we asked, but our grants member of WMF refused to seriously answer them.
Even with our lack of information and received insults, we tried to be constructive and before Christmas we proposed to the grants staff member that we would re-write during the Christmas holidays our annual plan (as the staff member had said many times we could improve it). With the e-mail following from the grants member of WMF this proposal was not rejected. So during the two weeks of the Christmas holidays we spent many days, together with the help from another experienced chapter representative, re-writing our annual plan. After the Christmas holidays, we were ready, and the response from the grants member from WMF was then that the re-written version could not be taken into account...
After some further e-mails with this staff member we concluded as WMBE mid January 2018 that a collaboration with this individual from WMF is impossible and we banned this individual from ever contacting us again and we never communicated ever with this person again.
The supervisor of this staff member has been informed by us about what happened, and refused to even investigate the situation.
A colleague from the staff member took over and we received our budget for 2018. Later during 2018 and 2019 this WMF staff member helped us very well with questions, provided useful feedback and the annual plan for 2019 which was approved. We are now happy with this collaboration.
*Case 2* During the Wikimedia Conference in April 2018 we still had many questions and our treasurer spoke with various other affiliates if they had advice, good practices, etc etc, so that we could improve our future annual plans. Instead of that good advice was given, they shared their similar bad experiences they had in the past years with our former grants person from WMF. Many of them indicated that they do not want the feedback/criticism to be public as they feel that their budget would be cut by WMF as result of it.
With multiple chapter representatives we started to collect the feedback so that we could come up with some recommendations for improvements for both the WMF processes regarding grants as well as recommendations for affiliates for how to write better annual plans.
Our former grants person from WMF heard about the initiative and started to tell bad (untrue) stories about WMBE's treasurer to bring him in discredit. Multiple people have testified that our former grants person was doing this, gossip like that WMBE's treasurer was planning to attack that grants person. The Trust & Safety team heard about it and drew immediately the conclusion that the gossip was true, without checking the facts, without even talking to any of the involved individuals, and asked WMBE's treasurer not to approach or contact the former grants person. (To be crystal clear: there was never ever a plan to contact the grants person from WMF at all.)
Even after the Trust & Safety team spoke with WMBE's treasure, the gossip continued, causing a very unsafe conference space. A member of the Trust & Safety team was later informed about the ongoing gossip and refused to take any action to stop it, indicating not to take it seriously.
*Case 3* During Wikimania 2018, WMBE's treasurer was asked to help the organisers of Wikimania in Cape Town to help and assist wherever needed. One of the tasks was to bring stuff from A to B on request. Everything seemed to go fine.
Halfway the conference, WMBE's treasurer was casually approached by a member of the Trust and Safety team with a question to have a chat. A second team member came and they took an elevator together. In the elevator the team members made jokes and were laughing. As soon as they were in the room, it was made clear that the Trust & Safety team had received complaints about WMBE's treasurer.
The main complaint was: being in the same (large) room as the grants member of WMF. The complainant was the grants member of WMF, and this person claimed that WMBE's treasurer had said something and that the grants member from WMF had been highly distressed resulting in not being able to do the presentation (later in that session) well.
The situation was that WMBE's treasurer was asked to bring something to a room where a session just started (such requests happen many times during the conference, the grants person who complained was not presenting at that time), the materials were handed to someone in the back of the room and he left the room silently as quickly as possible. Multiple people present in that session have testified that he did not speak while bringing materials to the room, and they also testified that the presentation by the grants person from WMF went reasonable well. Also, during lunch WMBE's treasurer was sitting somewhere very visible to everyone, where the grants person from WMF came standing next to the treasurer, approached from the front. If the grants person from WMF really gets highly distressed by his presence, this person would not have done that.
The Trust & Safety team blindly believed the statements made by their WMF colleague, the team did not ask witnesses in the room about what happened, all the information here above was provided to the Trust & Safety team, but the Trust & Safety team fully ignored this information and the witnesses who say otherwise.
Three additional anonymous complaints were:
- speaking to loud
- standing to close
- having touched someone's hand/arm
It must be noted that *none* of the people that complained to the Trust & Safety team had indicated to WMBE's treasurer to experience anything as problem. Also, WMBE's treasurer has as disability that he hears less, does not hear well what the height of his volume is (but still trying to not to speak too loud), and with bad acoustics has to stand closer to people to hear them well. The Trust & Safety team was informed about this during the meeting. Also in the local culture where he comes from touching is a normal thing. Also many people that have been frequently with WMBE's treasurer at the conference have indicated that he did not speak too loud.
During the meeting the Trust & Safety team told that they already had informed everyone in the organising team that they demanded WMBE's treasurer must stop helping in organising Wikimania 2018, meaning that they already had drawn the conclusion even before speaking with him.
They also indicated that they "had to do something" so they could show the complainants that they do something when complaints are received, even while their decision did not solve/improve the complaints at all. The Trust & Safety team refused to think about real solutions, they refused to organise a dialogue to solve the complaints, they refused to mediate, they promised to organise a meeting with a supervisor, but that they never did. It also became clear they have zero feeling with people with autism. The Trust & Safety said they could not share any more information about what happened because of the privacy of the complainants.
During the conference WMBE's treasurer made it public, to prevent having to tell emotionally what happened, as well as for transparency reasons. This did not take away that he felt ever since that chat highly unsafe as result by the behaviour of the Trust & Safety team, and still continues up to today, as well as he also had been five weeks ill after the conference because of this.
Many people at the conference indicated to disagree with the decision of the Trust & Safety team, including WMF staff members and Wikimania's organising team. During the conference many of them approached the Trust & Safety team about it, various of them also proposing other solutions that. In these talks the Trust & Safety team shared a lot more details which they refused to share with WMBE's treasurer. Also the Trust & Safety team told that he had been warned before (which is not true), as well as exaggerating and framing what supposedly had happened.
*Afterwards* After Wikimania the Trust & Safety team received an e-mail from WMBE's treasurer with a more detailed overview of what happened, including the many witnesses who claim differently. But all of this was fully ignored by the Trust & Safety team. After the conference nothing had been heard from the Trust & Safety team, until mid December 2018.
In the first two weeks of December 2018 WMBE's treasurer received multiple e-mails from WMF staff members, including strangely in what was written a farewell and thank you for all the work. Apparently the Trust & Safety team had shared their new decision with other departments, while actual stakeholders were not informed.
About a week later both the treasurer of WMBE as the president of WMBE (but none of the other organisations he is active for) received an e-mail in what the Trust & Safety team indicates to have received further complaints:
- First they refer to the situation in December 2017-January 2018
concerning the interaction with the former grants person from WMF. Apparently the Trust & Safety team fully has ignored all the insults at the address of our chapter and country. Also the e-mail reads largely like the grants person itself had written the e-mail.
- Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to ever contact WMBE's
former grants person at WMF (one way only!) (Even while WMBE had banned every contact with this person already in January 2018.)
- And they forbid to have contact with WMF grants grants team for about two
years. (Even while the contact with all the other members of the grants team was going fine, even receiving various compliments. )
Still it was decided by Wikimedia Belgium to keep WMBE's treasurer as treasurer of WMBE.
- Someone at the conference saw WMBE's treasurer with a mascot and asked
the name of the mascot. Answer: "Wendy the Weasel", clearly indicating a female name. The question that followed was what the gender was of the mascot. WMBE's treasurer was thinking that this was just said, and replied that as there are no outer organs the mascot must be female. (Having asked around, in the part of the world where WMBE's treasurer lives this is not considered a problem, but maybe this is differently elsewhere and is there a taboo.)
- Someone had indicated that WMBE's treasurer has been standing in the way
of that person and blocking the complainants path at Wikimania. It was a space of about 1.5 to 2 metres, where also multiple other people where standing, and people passing by were asked question, but everyone who wanted to pass by could do so.
- Someone has told that WMBE's treasurer would have said that he would
visit conferences "to pick up girls". Everybody who knows WMBE's treasurer knows this is nonsense. Some contest: WMBE's treasurer has someone he loves in his home country with zero interest of that kind in anyone else, and falls in the category of LGBT+ and does not fall on the women at the conferences. It must be noticed extremely suggestive interpretations of other people (that do not have the regular impressions, like due being LGBT+), have far reaching effects as conclusions. Such is an insult.
- Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to be present at events
funded directly/indirectly by WMF for two years.
Again it must be noticed that the Trust & Safety team for the third time on a row refuses to talk with the individual who it concerns first, before drawing any conclusions. The Trust & Safety team comes in their e-mail with a lot of assumptions based on loose sand. They also claim that WMBE's treasurer fails to assume good faith. In an e-mail to the presidents of two chapters they said that "they know how he thinks", followed by a lot of nonsense and false claims. The Trust & Safety team does not assume good faith themselves if they write that.
The Trust & Safety team provided in their communication zero examples of where the Friendly Space Policy has been breached.
The situation of WMBE's treasurer and the Trust & Safety team has been reviewed by an independent professional with expertise in complaints handling. The conclusion of this expert: almost everything that the Trust & Safety team could have done wrong in handling complaints, they did do wrong. Many basic principles in complaint handling and conflict resolution have been ignored by the Trust & Safety team. In addition to this, they communicate very intimidating as well as with treats.
The way how they work/communicate gives the impression like a staff member of WMF is more worth than a volunteer from the community.
Two chapters have reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation, indicating that the way how the Trust & Safety team was operating is not appropriate, but WMF refuses to take these concerns seriously and has ignored this fully. Again the Trust & Safety team refuses to work together on actual solutions.
To summarise, feedback/information from WMBE's treasurer has been ignored by WMF, feedback from the president of WMBE has been ignored by WMF, feedback from the president and director of WMNL have been ignored by WMF, feedback from other staff members in WMF have been ignored by WMF, feedback from many community members from the movement have been ignored.
Because of the behaviour of the trust & Safety team that causes for everyone in the movement an unsafe place, WMBE's treasurer has decided to indefinitely stop attending WMF funded events.
At the General Assembly it was requested to request an internal audit in WMF to bring all the problems there to the light. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
whoa!
pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward is not ok at all. I do not honestly understand why the story from nearly a year ago has emerged, with personal details.
It is not unusual for people who caused distress to not have done it intentionally, and to genuinely believe they did nothing wrong. It is nevertheless the role of the safety team to react to any reports they receive.
Romaine, you're describing "a rumor that WMBE's treasurer was planning to attack that grants person" and are surprised that the safety team acted upon this rumor. I hope it is clear that they did exactly what they should have done. If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as they may seem, the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged would-be attacker and request politely that they stay away, to deescalate even just a potentially tense situation.
I personally believe this fork of the discussion threat deserves a quick EOT and salting.
Dariusz "pundit" (replying in my absolutely personal, and hastily expressed opinion)
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 16:12, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as they may seem, the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged would-be attacker
and
request politely that they stay away, to deescalate even just a
potentially tense situation.
In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a rumour about them?
I personally believe this fork of the discussion threat deserves a quick
EOT and salting.
I personally don't.
Michel
" In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a rumour about them" - that's Wikimedia version of the Salem witch trials. Unbelievable that this sort of thing is coming from one of the WMF trustees, even as a personal opinion.
Paulo
Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019 à(s) 15:26:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 16:12, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as they may
seem,
the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged would-be attacker
and
request politely that they stay away, to deescalate even just a
potentially tense situation.
In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a rumour about them?
I personally believe this fork of the discussion threat deserves a quick
EOT and salting.
I personally don't.
Michel _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Are you comparing banning someone to participate at conference(s) with hanging innocent people?
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:34 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
" In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a rumour about them" - that's Wikimedia version of the Salem witch trials. Unbelievable that this sort of thing is coming from one of the WMF trustees, even as a personal opinion.
Paulo
Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019 à(s) 15:26:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 16:12, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as they may
seem,
the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged would-be
attacker
and
request politely that they stay away, to deescalate even just a
potentially tense situation.
In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a rumour about them?
I personally believe this fork of the discussion threat deserves a quick
EOT and salting.
I personally don't.
Michel _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I'm comparing it to a case where spreading of rumors led to the condemnation of presumably innocent people without due process, in a kind of "precautionary principle". The punishment in question is immaterial to this case. Or will you argue that an episode is only worth of attention if people are killed or physically hurt?
Paulo
Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019 à(s) 15:36:
Are you comparing banning someone to participate at conference(s) with hanging innocent people?
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:34 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
" In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a rumour about them" - that's Wikimedia version of the Salem witch trials. Unbelievable that this sort of thing is coming from one of the WMF trustees, even as a personal opinion.
Paulo
Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org escreveu no dia segunda,
17/06/2019
à(s) 15:26:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 16:12, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as they may
seem,
the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged would-be
attacker
and
request politely that they stay away, to deescalate even just a
potentially tense situation.
In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a rumour about them?
I personally believe this fork of the discussion threat deserves a
quick
EOT and salting.
I personally don't.
Michel _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:26 PM Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia@zog.orgmailto:wikipedia@zog.org> wrote: In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a rumour about them?
My understanding is that noone was banned from an event.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <paulosperneta@gmail.commailto:paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote: I've read and reread the WMBE message, and have not found anything near "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward".
I'm referring to message from Caroline.
I also do not understand why you're addressing WMBE as "Romaine" (begging the question?).
Can you please clarify?
The message was sent from romaine.wiki@gmail.commailto:romaine.wiki@gmail.com account and I assumed that addressing the sender as "Romaine" is appropriate.
best,
dj
Hello, It seems to me the best that a (different) member of the WMBE board contacts a suitable person at WMF. A public list is not the best place for sorting these things out. Kind regards Ziko
Am Mo., 17. Juni 2019 um 16:48 Uhr schrieb Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:26 PM Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia@zog.orgmailto:wikipedia@zog.org> wrote: In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a rumour about them?
My understanding is that noone was banned from an event.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <paulosperneta@gmail.commailto:paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote: I've read and reread the WMBE message, and have not found anything near "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward".
I'm referring to message from Caroline.
I also do not understand why you're addressing WMBE as "Romaine" (begging the question?).
Can you please clarify?
The message was sent from romaine.wiki@gmail.commailto:romaine.wiki@gmail.com account and I assumed that addressing the sender as "Romaine" is appropriate.
best,
dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thank you WMBE for your long report. I was at Wikimania 2018 and I was deeply troubled by the actions taken by the Trust & Safety team. I now have a much clearer understanding of what went on, and I feel that there really needs to be some introspection done by the Trust & Safety team. I am also quite horrified by your quote about a comment "that Wikimedia France and Wikimedia Netherlands could take everything over in Belgium". This is really so insesitive and displays such ignorance of the different European cultures that I just cannot understand why the record has not been set right. Belgium cannot be split up between France and the Netherlands, just like Switzerland cannot be split up between France, Germany and Italy (leaving just the little Romansh speaking area to fend for itself). Seriously, something is wrong at the Foundation, and this needs to be fixed.
Gabe proud member of WMCH, a multi-lingual and multi-cultural chapter
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:53 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, It seems to me the best that a (different) member of the WMBE board contacts a suitable person at WMF. A public list is not the best place for sorting these things out. Kind regards Ziko
Am Mo., 17. Juni 2019 um 16:48 Uhr schrieb Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:26 PM Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia@zog.org
mailto:wikipedia@zog.org> wrote:
In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a rumour about them?
My understanding is that noone was banned from an event.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulosperneta@gmail.commailto:paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
I've read and reread the WMBE message, and have not found anything near
"pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward".
I'm referring to message from Caroline.
I also do not understand why you're addressing WMBE as "Romaine"
(begging the question?).
Can you please clarify?
The message was sent from romaine.wiki@gmail.com<mailto:
romaine.wiki@gmail.com> account and I assumed that addressing the sender as "Romaine" is appropriate.
best,
dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
" I'm referring to message from Caroline" - How have you jumped from Caroline wanting to further clarify something, to the conclusion that the OP was "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward"? Yes, she claims to have been "forced to step up", but were you able to find any evidence for that in the OP? Any accusation is automatically true?
Paulo
Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019 à(s) 15:48:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:26 PM Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia@zog.org mailto:wikipedia@zog.org> wrote: In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a rumour about them?
My understanding is that noone was banned from an event.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.commailto:paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote: I've read and reread the WMBE message, and have not found anything near "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward".
I'm referring to message from Caroline.
I also do not understand why you're addressing WMBE as "Romaine" (begging the question?).
Can you please clarify?
The message was sent from romaine.wiki@gmail.commailto: romaine.wiki@gmail.com account and I assumed that addressing the sender as "Romaine" is appropriate.
best,
dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Paulo,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: " I'm referring to message from Caroline" - How have you jumped from Caroline wanting to further clarify something, to the conclusion that the OP was "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward"?
I'm specifically referring to this sentence " I really do not appreciate having this particular incident discussed here and being forced to step up like that."
Yes, she claims to have been "forced to step up", but were you able to find any evidence for that in the OP? Any accusation is automatically true?
I believe that the person who voluntarily identified herself as the one requesting T&S support is not randomly lying about that. I don't think it was an accusation, it was an expression of the personal urge to set the record straight.
Again, please note that I'm not referring to what did or did not happen a year ago. I've been trying to express my frustration with discussing personal details and stories on a public list. I've clearly failed.
best,
dj
Hi Dariusz,
I understand Caroline wanted to add that she was finding difficult that Romain was not aware of her stress or unease on a specific situation vaguely described there (without any mention to her at all). And that later they have talked about it, and she accepted his apologies for that in private. I can't find the least evidence of her being forced to step up and expose herself just to clarify that there. As far as I know, it never was in question that some people felt uneasy with some behavior there. They talked about it, apologies were presented, end of story. Or would have been end of story, if not for the T&S interference.
Paulo
Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019 à(s) 16:04:
Hi Paulo,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: " I'm referring to message from Caroline" - How have you jumped from Caroline wanting to further clarify something, to the conclusion that the OP was "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward"?
I'm specifically referring to this sentence " I really do not appreciate having this particular incident discussed here and being forced to step up like that."
Yes, she claims to have been "forced to step up", but were you able to find any evidence for that in the OP? Any accusation is automatically true?
I believe that the person who voluntarily identified herself as the one requesting T&S support is not randomly lying about that. I don't think it was an accusation, it was an expression of the personal urge to set the record straight.
Again, please note that I'm not referring to what did or did not happen a year ago. I've been trying to express my frustration with discussing personal details and stories on a public list. I've clearly failed.
best,
dj
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I was forced to step up *today* on this mailing list because the description of the WIkimania 2018 incident in the first mail was false: the claim that "none of us expressed there was a problem" is simply not what happened.
And by the way this is exactly why the details of stuff like that are NOT shared publicly. For me the incident was closed and well handled by the T&S team, I really didn't need a debate where people are expressing their uninformed, bar room like opinions about the seriousness of the incident or what should or should not have been done.
Caroline
Le lun. 17 juin 2019 à 17:14, Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com a écrit :
Hi Dariusz,
I understand Caroline wanted to add that she was finding difficult that Romain was not aware of her stress or unease on a specific situation vaguely described there (without any mention to her at all). And that later they have talked about it, and she accepted his apologies for that in private. I can't find the least evidence of her being forced to step up and expose herself just to clarify that there. As far as I know, it never was in question that some people felt uneasy with some behavior there. They talked about it, apologies were presented, end of story. Or would have been end of story, if not for the T&S interference.
Paulo
Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019 à(s) 16:04:
Hi Paulo,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: " I'm referring to message from Caroline" - How have you jumped from Caroline wanting to further clarify something, to the conclusion that the OP was "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward"?
I'm specifically referring to this sentence " I really do not appreciate having this particular incident discussed here and being forced to step
up
like that."
Yes, she claims to have been "forced to step up", but were you able to find any evidence for that in the OP? Any accusation is automatically
true?
I believe that the person who voluntarily identified herself as the one requesting T&S support is not randomly lying about that. I don't think it was an accusation, it was an expression of the personal urge to set the record straight.
Again, please note that I'm not referring to what did or did not happen a year ago. I've been trying to express my frustration with discussing personal details and stories on a public list. I've clearly failed.
best,
dj
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello Caroline,
I'm very sorry for what happened back in Capetown and that today you are reminded of this again through a public mailing list, where the story is starting to lead it's own life. I can only imagine that you felt the need to correct this misinterpretation of what happened to you. I know Romaine for several years and recognise the behaviour you are describing and even though I know he doesn't mean any harm with it (it's his enthusiasm that gets the better of him), I do realise it may cause distress with the other person. If you want to talk to me about this, please contact me of list. If this was enough for you, please do not feel you have to send any additional responses.
Hi all,
I was present at the assembly last Saturday and the whole situation is very complicated. I think, in his emotions to tell his story, Romaine indeed got two situations mixed up here and the emotional part should not be discussed on a public list. Furthermore I know first hand that both the chair of WMNL and WMBE are involved in the conversations with T&S and the WMF: there is no need for us to re-review this process, that is still ongoing at the moment.
Please let's close this thread.
Vriendelijke groet, Ciell
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Op ma 17 jun. 2019 om 17:39 schreef Caroline Becker <carobecker54@gmail.com
:
I was forced to step up *today* on this mailing list because the description of the WIkimania 2018 incident in the first mail was false: the claim that "none of us expressed there was a problem" is simply not what happened.
And by the way this is exactly why the details of stuff like that are NOT shared publicly. For me the incident was closed and well handled by the T&S team, I really didn't need a debate where people are expressing their uninformed, bar room like opinions about the seriousness of the incident or what should or should not have been done.
Caroline
Le lun. 17 juin 2019 à 17:14, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> a écrit :
Hi Dariusz,
I understand Caroline wanted to add that she was finding difficult that Romain was not aware of her stress or unease on a specific situation vaguely described there (without any mention to her at all). And that
later
they have talked about it, and she accepted his apologies for that in private. I can't find the least evidence of her being forced to step up
and
expose herself just to clarify that there. As far as I know, it never was in question that some people felt uneasy with some behavior there. They talked about it, apologies were presented, end of story. Or would have
been
end of story, if not for the T&S interference.
Paulo
Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl escreveu no dia segunda,
17/06/2019
à(s) 16:04:
Hi Paulo,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: " I'm referring to message from Caroline" - How have you jumped from Caroline wanting to further clarify something, to the conclusion that
the
OP was "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step
forward"?
I'm specifically referring to this sentence " I really do not
appreciate
having this particular incident discussed here and being forced to step
up
like that."
Yes, she claims to have been "forced to step up", but were you able to find any evidence for that in the OP? Any accusation is automatically
true?
I believe that the person who voluntarily identified herself as the one requesting T&S support is not randomly lying about that. I don't think
it
was an accusation, it was an expression of the personal urge to set the record straight.
Again, please note that I'm not referring to what did or did not
happen a
year ago. I've been trying to express my frustration with discussing personal details and stories on a public list. I've clearly failed.
best,
dj
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The "sender is Romaine" is not the same as "Romaine is WMBE". This sort of confusion should have been prevented by allowing another person to send this email on behalf of WMBE.
Regards,
Isaac
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 3:48 PM Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:26 PM Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia@zog.org mailto:wikipedia@zog.org> wrote: In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a rumour about them?
My understanding is that noone was banned from an event.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.commailto:paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote: I've read and reread the WMBE message, and have not found anything near "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward".
I'm referring to message from Caroline.
I also do not understand why you're addressing WMBE as "Romaine" (begging the question?).
Can you please clarify?
The message was sent from romaine.wiki@gmail.commailto: romaine.wiki@gmail.com account and I assumed that addressing the sender as "Romaine" is appropriate.
best,
dj _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
(forking the discussion to allow a focus on more general line, rather than the specifics of who wrote what, why and when) My main takeaway from this discussion would be that it's good if there is a neutral review option for actions by the T&S team (or the WMF in general), such as an ombudsperson.
A detailed discussion or evaluation of specific sanctions by the Trust and Safety team is not the kind of conversation to have publicly - I think most people agree on this. In conversations like this, there is always at least one party less comfortable to discuss the matter in public (or even discuss it at all, indeed).
At the same time, if actions are so severe, it's good if there is opportunity to have a review of the actions taken by a third party, to confirm to the person against who sanctions have been laid (or complainants in case no sanctions were laid), that appropriate processes were followed.
(This is perhaps stating the obvious - and I should acknowledge that I don't know enough about WMF processes today to know for sure whether this has maybe already even been implemented in the WMF structures a long time ago. I do get the impression though that if this is the case, not everyone is familiar with this option.)
Best, Lodewijk
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 3:48 PM Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
<snip>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Lodewijk,
You say:
*"My main takeaway from this discussion would be that it's good if there is a neutral review option for actions by the T&S team (or the WMF in general), such as an ombudsperson."*
I think this is a very good idea, last Saturday we talked about an internal audit for this, same idea I think. I know of several instances where the T&S team had to act/ was asked to act, and reviewing procedures from time to time should be a normal in a healthy organisation.
Vriendelijke groet, Ciell
Op di 18 jun. 2019 om 03:02 schreef effe iets anders < effeietsanders@gmail.com>:
(forking the discussion to allow a focus on more general line, rather than the specifics of who wrote what, why and when) My main takeaway from this discussion would be that it's good if there is a neutral review option for actions by the T&S team (or the WMF in general), such as an ombudsperson.
A detailed discussion or evaluation of specific sanctions by the Trust and Safety team is not the kind of conversation to have publicly - I think most people agree on this. In conversations like this, there is always at least one party less comfortable to discuss the matter in public (or even discuss it at all, indeed).
At the same time, if actions are so severe, it's good if there is opportunity to have a review of the actions taken by a third party, to confirm to the person against who sanctions have been laid (or complainants in case no sanctions were laid), that appropriate processes were followed.
(This is perhaps stating the obvious - and I should acknowledge that I don't know enough about WMF processes today to know for sure whether this has maybe already even been implemented in the WMF structures a long time ago. I do get the impression though that if this is the case, not everyone is familiar with this option.)
Best, Lodewijk
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 3:48 PM Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
<snip>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Dariusz,
I've read and reread the WMBE message, and have not found anything near "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward". I also do not understand why you're addressing WMBE as "Romaine" (begging the question?).
Can you please clarify?
Paulo
Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019 à(s) 15:12:
whoa!
pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward is not ok at all. I do not honestly understand why the story from nearly a year ago has emerged, with personal details.
It is not unusual for people who caused distress to not have done it intentionally, and to genuinely believe they did nothing wrong. It is nevertheless the role of the safety team to react to any reports they receive.
Romaine, you're describing "a rumor that WMBE's treasurer was planning to attack that grants person" and are surprised that the safety team acted upon this rumor. I hope it is clear that they did exactly what they should have done. If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as they may seem, the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged would-be attacker and request politely that they stay away, to deescalate even just a potentially tense situation.
I personally believe this fork of the discussion threat deserves a quick EOT and salting.
Dariusz "pundit" (replying in my absolutely personal, and hastily expressed opinion)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org