Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I'd also like to emphasize that my story is just one of many. I want people to feel heard. I encourage people to share their voice on the discussion page because our perspectives matter.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 1:52 a.m. L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
* publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
* Publicly written in the candidate statement:
*I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.*
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.*
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Thanks Victoria
Just as you posted this I was on Meta writing a post (1) asking to know what the Board's real reasons were but it seems you have cleared that up
I have been trying to put myself in the Board's shoes over the last few days and, for what it's worth, I suspect I might personally have reached the same conclusion regarding Lane's candidacy. However I don't believe Ravan has said anything that should disqualify her from being on the Board. Bluntly, excluding her has done more meaningful damage to the WMF's reputation than seating her would have done if she had won the election.
Chris
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/.... ..
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:19 AM Victoria Doronina vdoronina@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
*I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.*
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.*
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
"Future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media"
What a concerning statement. ________________________________ From: Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 11:46 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Petition for WMF Board reform
Thanks Victoria
Just as you posted this I was on Meta writing a post (1) asking to know what the Board's real reasons were but it seems you have cleared that up
I have been trying to put myself in the Board's shoes over the last few days and, for what it's worth, I suspect I might personally have reached the same conclusion regarding Lane's candidacy. However I don't believe Ravan has said anything that should disqualify her from being on the Board. Bluntly, excluding her has done more meaningful damage to the WMF's reputation than seating her would have done if she had won the election.
Chris
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/......
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:19 AM Victoria Doronina <vdoronina@wikimedia.orgmailto:vdoronina@wikimedia.org> wrote: Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
* publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - this is not true, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wikihttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
* Publicly written in the candidate statement:
I set up a Right to Informationhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C <zinkloss@gmail.commailto:zinkloss@gmail.com> wrote: It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover <clovermosswikipedia@gmail.commailto:clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Victoria,
As per Chris, the explanation is welcome for its clarity.
However, in the case of Ravan, "the risks for the public reputation of WMF” are overriding more things than gender equity here.
My understanding is this decision will be wholly or at least substantively in reaction to the Jerusalem Post piece https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804 (1) on Ravan, and the potential for proliferation of this type of coverage. If so, it’s very concerning to see an article that is effectively a direct demand that she be removed from contention for the board (citing the movement's own UCoC) achieve its goal so easily. It could be there are other things I’m not aware of, but that a major newspaper didn’t pick them up suggests to me that those listed represent the most controversial things anyone can find.
Whether we agree with them or not, the opinions expressed are not outliers within the Wikimedia community globally. If they are considered disqualifying, it effectively excludes any Wikimedian who’s ever shared or “liked" similar social media posts from participating in senior movement governance, as they will no doubt receive similar treatment, especially if they are from certain parts of the world.
In a sense, this is a logical decision for the an American nonprofit, comms-wise, fundraising-wise, even legally, but from the outside it looks like an area where WMF's operational, domestic priorities are winning out over its wider global responsibilities, increasing other risks in the process.
Best
Stuart Prior User:Battleofalma
(1) https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804
On 9 Oct 2025, at 10:46, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Victoria
Just as you posted this I was on Meta writing a post (1) asking to know what the Board's real reasons were but it seems you have cleared that up
I have been trying to put myself in the Board's shoes over the last few days and, for what it's worth, I suspect I might personally have reached the same conclusion regarding Lane's candidacy. However I don't believe Ravan has said anything that should disqualify her from being on the Board. Bluntly, excluding her has done more meaningful damage to the WMF's reputation than seating her would have done if she had won the election.
Chris
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/......
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:19 AM Victoria Doronina <vdoronina@wikimedia.org mailto:vdoronina@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - this is not true, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know.
Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C <zinkloss@gmail.com mailto:zinkloss@gmail.com> wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover <clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com mailto:clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Apologies for the second post, but I had missed Stuart Prior's illuminating post about Ravan J Al-Taie's candidacy. At this particular moment in history, it seems likely that the denial of her candidacy will be the one that brings greater damage to the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation.
For those not familiar with the issue of alleged systematic rape on October 7, I would urge you to read the English Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screams_Without_Words and to consider the underlying sources (primarily, a podcast produced by the *New York Times* which called into question the accuracy of a front page story in the same publication, and was subsequently suppressed), and in the *Intercept.* Briefly, the *Times* drove a story, which two years later remains published, alleging systematic rape, apparently based solely on the unauthenticated testimony of parties who had strong, undisclosed political motivations.
A core argument in the *Jerusalem Post's* case against Ravan rests on the notion that "*According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is a form of antisemitism*." I think most Wikipedians would agree, denying the comparison of two policy positions is hardly compatible with the pursuit of free knowledge.
Above all, I think the greatest possible harm to the Wikimedia Foundation in this instance would derive from any perception -- whether accurate or not -- that the Wikimedia Foundation capitulates to external calls to sanitize an election of specific political views.
-Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:16 AM Stuart Prior via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Victoria,
As per Chris, the explanation is welcome for its clarity.
However, in the case of Ravan, "the risks for the public reputation of WMF” are overriding more things than gender equity here.
My understanding is this decision will be wholly or at least substantively in reaction to the Jerusalem Post piece https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804 (1) on Ravan, and the potential for proliferation of this type of coverage. If so, it’s very concerning to see an article that is effectively a direct demand that she be removed from contention for the board (citing the movement's own UCoC) achieve its goal so easily. It could be there are other things I’m not aware of, but that a major newspaper didn’t pick them up suggests to me that those listed represent the most controversial things anyone can find.
Whether we agree with them or not, the opinions expressed are not outliers within the Wikimedia community globally. If they are considered disqualifying, it effectively excludes any Wikimedian who’s ever shared or “liked" similar social media posts from participating in senior movement governance, as they will no doubt receive similar treatment, especially if they are from certain parts of the world.
In a sense, this is a logical decision for the an American nonprofit, comms-wise, fundraising-wise, even legally, but from the outside it looks like an area where WMF's operational, domestic priorities are winning out over its wider global responsibilities, increasing other risks in the process.
Best
Stuart Prior User:Battleofalma
(1) https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804
On 9 Oct 2025, at 10:46, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Victoria
Just as you posted this I was on Meta writing a post (1) asking to know what the Board's real reasons were but it seems you have cleared that up
I have been trying to put myself in the Board's shoes over the last few days and, for what it's worth, I suspect I might personally have reached the same conclusion regarding Lane's candidacy. However I don't believe Ravan has said anything that should disqualify her from being on the Board. Bluntly, excluding her has done more meaningful damage to the WMF's reputation than seating her would have done if she had won the election.
Chris
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/.... ..
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:19 AM Victoria Doronina vdoronina@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
*I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.*
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.*
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi,
This decision will not be changed.
When a Board makes a decision it ***knows*** the communities will hate and come after them for, it is not taken lightly. You think, debate, and argue a lot before you act. And when you finally do, it is because you have to.
You do not do that on a whim.
And this is not the first time.
We are in a loop, and it feels like we have grown used to it.
The same scenario repeats again and again. Trustees change, different backgrounds, beliefs, perspectives, yet the underlying dynamics stay the same.
We have a systemic issue that has been with us for years.
The Foundation is still perceived as a community body. It is not, and it never was. It’s a US based organisation operating and protecting the websites and the brands.
Board elections have always been elections in name only. They are a way for the communities to recommend candidates, not to appoint them.
It is long past time we acknowledge that we have built a system with two centers of power, the Foundation and the communities, that do not share that power. This permanent imbalance creates constant tension, wastes time and energy, and ultimately weakens our entire movement.
It is time we face that reality together.
This latest situation is only another symptom of a much deeper problem, one we have chosen to tolerate for too long.
Perhaps we have grown to even love this loop?
But I, for one, am tired of it.
No one here is doing something wrong; it is the system we built that is wrong.
Christophe
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 7:07 AM Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies for the second post, but I had missed Stuart Prior's illuminating post about Ravan J Al-Taie's candidacy. At this particular moment in history, it seems likely that the denial of her candidacy will be the one that brings greater damage to the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation.
For those not familiar with the issue of alleged systematic rape on October 7, I would urge you to read the English Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screams_Without_Words and to consider the underlying sources (primarily, a podcast produced by the *New York Times* which called into question the accuracy of a front page story in the same publication, and was subsequently suppressed), and in the *Intercept.* Briefly, the *Times* drove a story, which two years later remains published, alleging systematic rape, apparently based solely on the unauthenticated testimony of parties who had strong, undisclosed political motivations.
A core argument in the *Jerusalem Post's* case against Ravan rests on the notion that "*According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is a form of antisemitism*." I think most Wikipedians would agree, denying the comparison of two policy positions is hardly compatible with the pursuit of free knowledge.
Above all, I think the greatest possible harm to the Wikimedia Foundation in this instance would derive from any perception -- whether accurate or not -- that the Wikimedia Foundation capitulates to external calls to sanitize an election of specific political views.
-Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:16 AM Stuart Prior via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Victoria,
As per Chris, the explanation is welcome for its clarity.
However, in the case of Ravan, "the risks for the public reputation of WMF” are overriding more things than gender equity here.
My understanding is this decision will be wholly or at least substantively in reaction to the Jerusalem Post piece https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804 (1) on Ravan, and the potential for proliferation of this type of coverage. If so, it’s very concerning to see an article that is effectively a direct demand that she be removed from contention for the board (citing the movement's own UCoC) achieve its goal so easily. It could be there are other things I’m not aware of, but that a major newspaper didn’t pick them up suggests to me that those listed represent the most controversial things anyone can find.
Whether we agree with them or not, the opinions expressed are not outliers within the Wikimedia community globally. If they are considered disqualifying, it effectively excludes any Wikimedian who’s ever shared or “liked" similar social media posts from participating in senior movement governance, as they will no doubt receive similar treatment, especially if they are from certain parts of the world.
In a sense, this is a logical decision for the an American nonprofit, comms-wise, fundraising-wise, even legally, but from the outside it looks like an area where WMF's operational, domestic priorities are winning out over its wider global responsibilities, increasing other risks in the process.
Best
Stuart Prior User:Battleofalma
(1) https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804
On 9 Oct 2025, at 10:46, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Victoria
Just as you posted this I was on Meta writing a post (1) asking to know what the Board's real reasons were but it seems you have cleared that up
I have been trying to put myself in the Board's shoes over the last few days and, for what it's worth, I suspect I might personally have reached the same conclusion regarding Lane's candidacy. However I don't believe Ravan has said anything that should disqualify her from being on the Board. Bluntly, excluding her has done more meaningful damage to the WMF's reputation than seating her would have done if she had won the election.
Chris
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/.... ..
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:19 AM Victoria Doronina < vdoronina@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
*I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.*
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.*
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
You are right, Christophe. The Board is not going to change their decision. After all, this is the same Board that decided that a majority of Affiliates and the vote of the Community over a process for more openness wasn't right, and threw away millions of dollars from donors, thousands of affiliates staff work-hours and hundreds of volunteer's discussion time to the garbage.
There was a solution: more democracy and openness. We collectively decided that, after long discussions and a complex voting process. They decided that they knew better. They decided that they didn't care about what Affiliates and the Community voted, and now they are saying it a second time: "we don't care at all".
I was going to vote. Now I'm not voting. Enough is enough.
Galder ________________________________ From: Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2025 8:10 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Stuart Prior prior_stuart@me.com Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Petition for WMF Board reform
Hi,
This decision will not be changed.
When a Board makes a decision it ***knows*** the communities will hate and come after them for, it is not taken lightly. You think, debate, and argue a lot before you act. And when you finally do, it is because you have to.
You do not do that on a whim.
And this is not the first time.
We are in a loop, and it feels like we have grown used to it.
The same scenario repeats again and again. Trustees change, different backgrounds, beliefs, perspectives, yet the underlying dynamics stay the same.
We have a systemic issue that has been with us for years.
The Foundation is still perceived as a community body. It is not, and it never was. It’s a US based organisation operating and protecting the websites and the brands.
Board elections have always been elections in name only. They are a way for the communities to recommend candidates, not to appoint them.
It is long past time we acknowledge that we have built a system with two centers of power, the Foundation and the communities, that do not share that power. This permanent imbalance creates constant tension, wastes time and energy, and ultimately weakens our entire movement.
It is time we face that reality together.
This latest situation is only another symptom of a much deeper problem, one we have chosen to tolerate for too long.
Perhaps we have grown to even love this loop?
But I, for one, am tired of it.
No one here is doing something wrong; it is the system we built that is wrong.
Christophe
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 7:07 AM Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.commailto:peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote: Apologies for the second post, but I had missed Stuart Prior's illuminating post about Ravan J Al-Taie's candidacy. At this particular moment in history, it seems likely that the denial of her candidacy will be the one that brings greater damage to the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation.
For those not familiar with the issue of alleged systematic rape on October 7, I would urge you to read the English Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screams_Without_Words and to consider the underlying sources (primarily, a podcast produced by the New York Times which called into question the accuracy of a front page story in the same publication, and was subsequently suppressed), and in the Intercept. Briefly, the Times drove a story, which two years later remains published, alleging systematic rape, apparently based solely on the unauthenticated testimony of parties who had strong, undisclosed political motivations.
A core argument in the Jerusalem Post's case against Ravan rests on the notion that "According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is a form of antisemitism." I think most Wikipedians would agree, denying the comparison of two policy positions is hardly compatible with the pursuit of free knowledge.
Above all, I think the greatest possible harm to the Wikimedia Foundation in this instance would derive from any perception -- whether accurate or not -- that the Wikimedia Foundation capitulates to external calls to sanitize an election of specific political views.
-Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:16 AM Stuart Prior via Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: Victoria,
As per Chris, the explanation is welcome for its clarity.
However, in the case of Ravan, "the risks for the public reputation of WMF” are overriding more things than gender equity here.
My understanding is this decision will be wholly or at least substantively in reaction to the Jerusalem Post piecehttps://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804 (1) on Ravan, and the potential for proliferation of this type of coverage. If so, it’s very concerning to see an article that is effectively a direct demand that she be removed from contention for the board (citing the movement's own UCoC) achieve its goal so easily. It could be there are other things I’m not aware of, but that a major newspaper didn’t pick them up suggests to me that those listed represent the most controversial things anyone can find.
Whether we agree with them or not, the opinions expressed are not outliers within the Wikimedia community globally. If they are considered disqualifying, it effectively excludes any Wikimedian who’s ever shared or “liked" similar social media posts from participating in senior movement governance, as they will no doubt receive similar treatment, especially if they are from certain parts of the world.
In a sense, this is a logical decision for the an American nonprofit, comms-wise, fundraising-wise, even legally, but from the outside it looks like an area where WMF's operational, domestic priorities are winning out over its wider global responsibilities, increasing other risks in the process.
Best
Stuart Prior User:Battleofalma
(1) https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804
On 9 Oct 2025, at 10:46, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.commailto:chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Victoria
Just as you posted this I was on Meta writing a post (1) asking to know what the Board's real reasons were but it seems you have cleared that up
I have been trying to put myself in the Board's shoes over the last few days and, for what it's worth, I suspect I might personally have reached the same conclusion regarding Lane's candidacy. However I don't believe Ravan has said anything that should disqualify her from being on the Board. Bluntly, excluding her has done more meaningful damage to the WMF's reputation than seating her would have done if she had won the election.
Chris
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/......
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:19 AM Victoria Doronina <vdoronina@wikimedia.orgmailto:vdoronina@wikimedia.org> wrote: Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
* publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - this is not true, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wikihttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
* Publicly written in the candidate statement:
I set up a Right to Informationhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C <zinkloss@gmail.commailto:zinkloss@gmail.com> wrote: It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover <clovermosswikipedia@gmail.commailto:clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
If you are talking about the strategy process, putting a blame on the board of trustees is wrong.
The blame is fully shared, we have to own our own mistakes too. The Charter process was designed by the communities, it was a community driven work, that led to a charter that no one was feeling confident with.
The decision the board made in that instance was the right one. How it managed the aftermath is where I would say there was a lapse (the different initiatives are bandaids that maintain the status quo).
The problem we faced is a total lack of leadership. For the Foundation to take leadership on community related topics is at best very complex (been there done that). When it does it shouldn’t when it doesn’t it should.
But the same goes for affiliates. And even for communities.
We really have to stop pointing fingers and blaming each other. We are all parts of the problem.
And solving systemic problems means not everyone will be happy, it means a clear vision and leadership.
Our system is a highly centralised (and I’m not talking just about Foundation, « enwp » is also part of the centralization problem) leadershipless system. What could go wrong ?
-- Christophe
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 9:49 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are right, Christophe. The Board is not going to change their decision. After all, this is the same Board that decided that a majority of Affiliates and the vote of the Community over a process for more openness wasn't right, and threw away millions of dollars from donors, thousands of affiliates staff work-hours and hundreds of volunteer's discussion time to the garbage.
There was a solution: more democracy and openness. We collectively decided that, after long discussions and a complex voting process. They decided that they knew better. They decided that they didn't care about what Affiliates and the Community voted, and now they are saying it a second time: "we don't care at all".
I was going to vote. Now I'm not voting. Enough is enough.
Galder
*From:* Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2025 8:10 AM *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Cc:* Stuart Prior prior_stuart@me.com *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Petition for WMF Board reform
Hi,
This decision will not be changed.
When a Board makes a decision it ***knows*** the communities will hate and come after them for, it is not taken lightly. You think, debate, and argue a lot before you act. And when you finally do, it is because you have to.
You do not do that on a whim.
And this is not the first time.
We are in a loop, and it feels like we have grown used to it.
The same scenario repeats again and again. Trustees change, different backgrounds, beliefs, perspectives, yet the underlying dynamics stay the same.
We have a systemic issue that has been with us for years.
The Foundation is still perceived as a community body. It is not, and it never was. It’s a US based organisation operating and protecting the websites and the brands.
Board elections have always been elections in name only. They are a way for the communities to recommend candidates, not to appoint them.
It is long past time we acknowledge that we have built a system with two centers of power, the Foundation and the communities, that do not share that power. This permanent imbalance creates constant tension, wastes time and energy, and ultimately weakens our entire movement.
It is time we face that reality together.
This latest situation is only another symptom of a much deeper problem, one we have chosen to tolerate for too long.
Perhaps we have grown to even love this loop?
But I, for one, am tired of it.
No one here is doing something wrong; it is the system we built that is wrong.
Christophe
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 7:07 AM Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies for the second post, but I had missed Stuart Prior's illuminating post about Ravan J Al-Taie's candidacy. At this particular moment in history, it seems likely that the denial of her candidacy will be the one that brings greater damage to the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation.
For those not familiar with the issue of alleged systematic rape on October 7, I would urge you to read the English Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screams_Without_Words and to consider the underlying sources (primarily, a podcast produced by the *New York Times* which called into question the accuracy of a front page story in the same publication, and was subsequently suppressed), and in the *Intercept.* Briefly, the *Times* drove a story, which two years later remains published, alleging systematic rape, apparently based solely on the unauthenticated testimony of parties who had strong, undisclosed political motivations.
A core argument in the *Jerusalem Post's* case against Ravan rests on the notion that "*According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is a form of antisemitism*." I think most Wikipedians would agree, denying the comparison of two policy positions is hardly compatible with the pursuit of free knowledge.
Above all, I think the greatest possible harm to the Wikimedia Foundation in this instance would derive from any perception -- whether accurate or not -- that the Wikimedia Foundation capitulates to external calls to sanitize an election of specific political views.
-Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:16 AM Stuart Prior via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Victoria,
As per Chris, the explanation is welcome for its clarity.
However, in the case of Ravan, "the risks for the public reputation of WMF” are overriding more things than gender equity here.
My understanding is this decision will be wholly or at least substantively in reaction to the Jerusalem Post piece https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804 (1) on Ravan, and the potential for proliferation of this type of coverage. If so, it’s very concerning to see an article that is effectively a direct demand that she be removed from contention for the board (citing the movement's own UCoC) achieve its goal so easily. It could be there are other things I’m not aware of, but that a major newspaper didn’t pick them up suggests to me that those listed represent the most controversial things anyone can find.
Whether we agree with them or not, the opinions expressed are not outliers within the Wikimedia community globally. If they are considered disqualifying, it effectively excludes any Wikimedian who’s ever shared or “liked" similar social media posts from participating in senior movement governance, as they will no doubt receive similar treatment, especially if they are from certain parts of the world.
In a sense, this is a logical decision for the an American nonprofit, comms-wise, fundraising-wise, even legally, but from the outside it looks like an area where WMF's operational, domestic priorities are winning out over its wider global responsibilities, increasing other risks in the process.
Best
Stuart Prior User:Battleofalma
(1) https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804
On 9 Oct 2025, at 10:46, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Victoria
Just as you posted this I was on Meta writing a post (1) asking to know what the Board's real reasons were but it seems you have cleared that up
I have been trying to put myself in the Board's shoes over the last few days and, for what it's worth, I suspect I might personally have reached the same conclusion regarding Lane's candidacy. However I don't believe Ravan has said anything that should disqualify her from being on the Board. Bluntly, excluding her has done more meaningful damage to the WMF's reputation than seating her would have done if she had won the election.
Chris
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/.... ..
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:19 AM Victoria Doronina vdoronina@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
*I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.*
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.*
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I would like to ask that we refrain from speaking in the past tense or in a tone of resignation. At this moment, we have elections in which at least 100 people will not participate for reasons that have been solidly explained from the Arab Community, Latin America, Italian Community and LGBT+ fellows. If this does not prompt the Board to show a minimum of sensitivity and change its position of “we have already decided,” I think that says a lot about the current Board members, both individually and collectively. *The current Board should remember that something may be legal, but it may not be legitimate*.
As Galder has said, we need greater democracy and openness. We realize, then, that we have a closed board that will make decisions for us, even if that means overriding the rights of prominent colleagues such as Ravan and Lane.
@Gnangarra No one is speaking badly of the fellow candidates. They are not only colleagues, but also friends. In fact, my community organized a call with Bobby to know more about him and his proposals, the only one candidate that showed interest in Global South challenges. What we are talking about their participation is appealing to their ethics to see if they will continue to participate in a process that is moving toward illegitimacy.
El sáb, 11 oct 2025 a las 5:23, Christophe Henner (< christophe.henner@gmail.com>) escribió:
If you are talking about the strategy process, putting a blame on the board of trustees is wrong.
The blame is fully shared, we have to own our own mistakes too. The Charter process was designed by the communities, it was a community driven work, that led to a charter that no one was feeling confident with.
The decision the board made in that instance was the right one. How it managed the aftermath is where I would say there was a lapse (the different initiatives are bandaids that maintain the status quo).
The problem we faced is a total lack of leadership. For the Foundation to take leadership on community related topics is at best very complex (been there done that). When it does it shouldn’t when it doesn’t it should.
But the same goes for affiliates. And even for communities.
We really have to stop pointing fingers and blaming each other. We are all parts of the problem.
And solving systemic problems means not everyone will be happy, it means a clear vision and leadership.
Our system is a highly centralised (and I’m not talking just about Foundation, « enwp » is also part of the centralization problem) leadershipless system. What could go wrong ?
-- Christophe
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 9:49 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are right, Christophe. The Board is not going to change their decision. After all, this is the same Board that decided that a majority of Affiliates and the vote of the Community over a process for more openness wasn't right, and threw away millions of dollars from donors, thousands of affiliates staff work-hours and hundreds of volunteer's discussion time to the garbage.
There was a solution: more democracy and openness. We collectively decided that, after long discussions and a complex voting process. They decided that they knew better. They decided that they didn't care about what Affiliates and the Community voted, and now they are saying it a second time: "we don't care at all".
I was going to vote. Now I'm not voting. Enough is enough.
Galder
*From:* Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2025 8:10 AM *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Cc:* Stuart Prior prior_stuart@me.com *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Petition for WMF Board reform
Hi,
This decision will not be changed.
When a Board makes a decision it ***knows*** the communities will hate and come after them for, it is not taken lightly. You think, debate, and argue a lot before you act. And when you finally do, it is because you have to.
You do not do that on a whim.
And this is not the first time.
We are in a loop, and it feels like we have grown used to it.
The same scenario repeats again and again. Trustees change, different backgrounds, beliefs, perspectives, yet the underlying dynamics stay the same.
We have a systemic issue that has been with us for years.
The Foundation is still perceived as a community body. It is not, and it never was. It’s a US based organisation operating and protecting the websites and the brands.
Board elections have always been elections in name only. They are a way for the communities to recommend candidates, not to appoint them.
It is long past time we acknowledge that we have built a system with two centers of power, the Foundation and the communities, that do not share that power. This permanent imbalance creates constant tension, wastes time and energy, and ultimately weakens our entire movement.
It is time we face that reality together.
This latest situation is only another symptom of a much deeper problem, one we have chosen to tolerate for too long.
Perhaps we have grown to even love this loop?
But I, for one, am tired of it.
No one here is doing something wrong; it is the system we built that is wrong.
Christophe
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 7:07 AM Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies for the second post, but I had missed Stuart Prior's illuminating post about Ravan J Al-Taie's candidacy. At this particular moment in history, it seems likely that the denial of her candidacy will be the one that brings greater damage to the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation.
For those not familiar with the issue of alleged systematic rape on October 7, I would urge you to read the English Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screams_Without_Words and to consider the underlying sources (primarily, a podcast produced by the *New York Times* which called into question the accuracy of a front page story in the same publication, and was subsequently suppressed), and in the *Intercept.* Briefly, the *Times* drove a story, which two years later remains published, alleging systematic rape, apparently based solely on the unauthenticated testimony of parties who had strong, undisclosed political motivations.
A core argument in the *Jerusalem Post's* case against Ravan rests on the notion that "*According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is a form of antisemitism*." I think most Wikipedians would agree, denying the comparison of two policy positions is hardly compatible with the pursuit of free knowledge.
Above all, I think the greatest possible harm to the Wikimedia Foundation in this instance would derive from any perception -- whether accurate or not -- that the Wikimedia Foundation capitulates to external calls to sanitize an election of specific political views.
-Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:16 AM Stuart Prior via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Victoria,
As per Chris, the explanation is welcome for its clarity.
However, in the case of Ravan, "the risks for the public reputation of WMF” are overriding more things than gender equity here.
My understanding is this decision will be wholly or at least substantively in reaction to the Jerusalem Post piece https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804 (1) on Ravan, and the potential for proliferation of this type of coverage. If so, it’s very concerning to see an article that is effectively a direct demand that she be removed from contention for the board (citing the movement's own UCoC) achieve its goal so easily. It could be there are other things I’m not aware of, but that a major newspaper didn’t pick them up suggests to me that those listed represent the most controversial things anyone can find.
Whether we agree with them or not, the opinions expressed are not outliers within the Wikimedia community globally. If they are considered disqualifying, it effectively excludes any Wikimedian who’s ever shared or “liked" similar social media posts from participating in senior movement governance, as they will no doubt receive similar treatment, especially if they are from certain parts of the world.
In a sense, this is a logical decision for the an American nonprofit, comms-wise, fundraising-wise, even legally, but from the outside it looks like an area where WMF's operational, domestic priorities are winning out over its wider global responsibilities, increasing other risks in the process.
Best
Stuart Prior User:Battleofalma
(1) https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804
On 9 Oct 2025, at 10:46, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Victoria
Just as you posted this I was on Meta writing a post (1) asking to know what the Board's real reasons were but it seems you have cleared that up
I have been trying to put myself in the Board's shoes over the last few days and, for what it's worth, I suspect I might personally have reached the same conclusion regarding Lane's candidacy. However I don't believe Ravan has said anything that should disqualify her from being on the Board. Bluntly, excluding her has done more meaningful damage to the WMF's reputation than seating her would have done if she had won the election.
Chris
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/.... ..
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:19 AM Victoria Doronina < vdoronina@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
*I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.*
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.*
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Christophe,
I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying, but I have to question the idea that Wikimedia Foundation decisions do not get reversed.
- The VisualEditor was made "opt-in" after being released as the default. - The Superprotect software feature was removed. - Executive Director Lila Tretikov did not remain in her position long. - Trustee James Heilman was reseated after being removed.
I don't know that any of these changes was made in a way or on a schedule that properly mitigated or reversed the initial damage, but the changes did happen.
Wikimedia has only one generative power center: the collection of editors who create and refine the content of the wikis. That content is without equal, even among web properties whose annual budgets utterly eclipse that of the Foundation. The Board has some limited amount of power to support and cultivate and focus that power, and has the power to intentionally or unintentionally undermine the value created by editors. But the Board does not have a whole lot of power to actually build something. At least, not power that we've seen thoroughly exercised to date.
Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 11:11 PM Christophe Henner < christophe.henner@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
This decision will not be changed.
When a Board makes a decision it ***knows*** the communities will hate and come after them for, it is not taken lightly. You think, debate, and argue a lot before you act. And when you finally do, it is because you have to.
You do not do that on a whim.
And this is not the first time.
We are in a loop, and it feels like we have grown used to it.
The same scenario repeats again and again. Trustees change, different backgrounds, beliefs, perspectives, yet the underlying dynamics stay the same.
We have a systemic issue that has been with us for years.
The Foundation is still perceived as a community body. It is not, and it never was. It’s a US based organisation operating and protecting the websites and the brands.
Board elections have always been elections in name only. They are a way for the communities to recommend candidates, not to appoint them.
It is long past time we acknowledge that we have built a system with two centers of power, the Foundation and the communities, that do not share that power. This permanent imbalance creates constant tension, wastes time and energy, and ultimately weakens our entire movement.
It is time we face that reality together.
This latest situation is only another symptom of a much deeper problem, one we have chosen to tolerate for too long.
Perhaps we have grown to even love this loop?
But I, for one, am tired of it.
No one here is doing something wrong; it is the system we built that is wrong.
Christophe
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 7:07 AM Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies for the second post, but I had missed Stuart Prior's illuminating post about Ravan J Al-Taie's candidacy. At this particular moment in history, it seems likely that the denial of her candidacy will be the one that brings greater damage to the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation.
For those not familiar with the issue of alleged systematic rape on October 7, I would urge you to read the English Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screams_Without_Words and to consider the underlying sources (primarily, a podcast produced by the *New York Times* which called into question the accuracy of a front page story in the same publication, and was subsequently suppressed), and in the *Intercept.* Briefly, the *Times* drove a story, which two years later remains published, alleging systematic rape, apparently based solely on the unauthenticated testimony of parties who had strong, undisclosed political motivations.
A core argument in the *Jerusalem Post's* case against Ravan rests on the notion that "*According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is a form of antisemitism*." I think most Wikipedians would agree, denying the comparison of two policy positions is hardly compatible with the pursuit of free knowledge.
Above all, I think the greatest possible harm to the Wikimedia Foundation in this instance would derive from any perception -- whether accurate or not -- that the Wikimedia Foundation capitulates to external calls to sanitize an election of specific political views.
-Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:16 AM Stuart Prior via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Victoria,
As per Chris, the explanation is welcome for its clarity.
However, in the case of Ravan, "the risks for the public reputation of WMF” are overriding more things than gender equity here.
My understanding is this decision will be wholly or at least substantively in reaction to the Jerusalem Post piece https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804 (1) on Ravan, and the potential for proliferation of this type of coverage. If so, it’s very concerning to see an article that is effectively a direct demand that she be removed from contention for the board (citing the movement's own UCoC) achieve its goal so easily. It could be there are other things I’m not aware of, but that a major newspaper didn’t pick them up suggests to me that those listed represent the most controversial things anyone can find.
Whether we agree with them or not, the opinions expressed are not outliers within the Wikimedia community globally. If they are considered disqualifying, it effectively excludes any Wikimedian who’s ever shared or “liked" similar social media posts from participating in senior movement governance, as they will no doubt receive similar treatment, especially if they are from certain parts of the world.
In a sense, this is a logical decision for the an American nonprofit, comms-wise, fundraising-wise, even legally, but from the outside it looks like an area where WMF's operational, domestic priorities are winning out over its wider global responsibilities, increasing other risks in the process.
Best
Stuart Prior User:Battleofalma
(1) https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804
On 9 Oct 2025, at 10:46, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Victoria
Just as you posted this I was on Meta writing a post (1) asking to know what the Board's real reasons were but it seems you have cleared that up
I have been trying to put myself in the Board's shoes over the last few days and, for what it's worth, I suspect I might personally have reached the same conclusion regarding Lane's candidacy. However I don't believe Ravan has said anything that should disqualify her from being on the Board. Bluntly, excluding her has done more meaningful damage to the WMF's reputation than seating her would have done if she had won the election.
Chris
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/.... ..
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:19 AM Victoria Doronina < vdoronina@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
*I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.*
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.*
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
2 out 4 of your examples are features related not corporate governance. 1 the support of the community was instrumental but it was going with Foundation Staff. 1 has nothing to do with community, James was re appointed after running again (I was chair at that time I would know).
And that narrative « Community has the power » has been part of the problem.
First there is no such thing as The Community. There is not even A Editors Community. We have many different communities. And most of them are not even part of those discussions…
Second the majority of communities don’t care about all of those topics.
Third The Community is one center of power Foundation is the other. Thinking otherwise is killing any room for the required discussions, compromised and shared decisions.
It’s entertaining the « us versus them » which is the core of the problem.
We are all in the same boat. The world is burning. Free and Neutral knowledge has never been as political as today. But yeah sure let’s have more infighting and focus on the episode we are going through (again, not the first time at all) and not on the systemic issue.
-- Christophe
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 3:41 PM Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Christophe,
I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying, but I have to question the idea that Wikimedia Foundation decisions do not get reversed.
- The VisualEditor was made "opt-in" after being released as the
default.
- The Superprotect software feature was removed.
- Executive Director Lila Tretikov did not remain in her position long.
- Trustee James Heilman was reseated after being removed.
I don't know that any of these changes was made in a way or on a schedule that properly mitigated or reversed the initial damage, but the changes did happen.
Wikimedia has only one generative power center: the collection of editors who create and refine the content of the wikis. That content is without equal, even among web properties whose annual budgets utterly eclipse that of the Foundation. The Board has some limited amount of power to support and cultivate and focus that power, and has the power to intentionally or unintentionally undermine the value created by editors. But the Board does not have a whole lot of power to actually build something. At least, not power that we've seen thoroughly exercised to date.
Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 11:11 PM Christophe Henner < christophe.henner@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
This decision will not be changed.
When a Board makes a decision it ***knows*** the communities will hate and come after them for, it is not taken lightly. You think, debate, and argue a lot before you act. And when you finally do, it is because you have to.
You do not do that on a whim.
And this is not the first time.
We are in a loop, and it feels like we have grown used to it.
The same scenario repeats again and again. Trustees change, different backgrounds, beliefs, perspectives, yet the underlying dynamics stay the same.
We have a systemic issue that has been with us for years.
The Foundation is still perceived as a community body. It is not, and it never was. It’s a US based organisation operating and protecting the websites and the brands.
Board elections have always been elections in name only. They are a way for the communities to recommend candidates, not to appoint them.
It is long past time we acknowledge that we have built a system with two centers of power, the Foundation and the communities, that do not share that power. This permanent imbalance creates constant tension, wastes time and energy, and ultimately weakens our entire movement.
It is time we face that reality together.
This latest situation is only another symptom of a much deeper problem, one we have chosen to tolerate for too long.
Perhaps we have grown to even love this loop?
But I, for one, am tired of it.
No one here is doing something wrong; it is the system we built that is wrong.
Christophe
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 7:07 AM Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies for the second post, but I had missed Stuart Prior's illuminating post about Ravan J Al-Taie's candidacy. At this particular moment in history, it seems likely that the denial of her candidacy will be the one that brings greater damage to the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation.
For those not familiar with the issue of alleged systematic rape on October 7, I would urge you to read the English Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screams_Without_Words and to consider the underlying sources (primarily, a podcast produced by the *New York Times* which called into question the accuracy of a front page story in the same publication, and was subsequently suppressed), and in the *Intercept.* Briefly, the *Times* drove a story, which two years later remains published, alleging systematic rape, apparently based solely on the unauthenticated testimony of parties who had strong, undisclosed political motivations.
A core argument in the *Jerusalem Post's* case against Ravan rests on the notion that "*According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is a form of antisemitism*." I think most Wikipedians would agree, denying the comparison of two policy positions is hardly compatible with the pursuit of free knowledge.
Above all, I think the greatest possible harm to the Wikimedia Foundation in this instance would derive from any perception -- whether accurate or not -- that the Wikimedia Foundation capitulates to external calls to sanitize an election of specific political views.
-Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:16 AM Stuart Prior via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Victoria,
As per Chris, the explanation is welcome for its clarity.
However, in the case of Ravan, "the risks for the public reputation of WMF” are overriding more things than gender equity here.
My understanding is this decision will be wholly or at least substantively in reaction to the Jerusalem Post piece https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804 (1) on Ravan, and the potential for proliferation of this type of coverage. If so, it’s very concerning to see an article that is effectively a direct demand that she be removed from contention for the board (citing the movement's own UCoC) achieve its goal so easily. It could be there are other things I’m not aware of, but that a major newspaper didn’t pick them up suggests to me that those listed represent the most controversial things anyone can find.
Whether we agree with them or not, the opinions expressed are not outliers within the Wikimedia community globally. If they are considered disqualifying, it effectively excludes any Wikimedian who’s ever shared or “liked" similar social media posts from participating in senior movement governance, as they will no doubt receive similar treatment, especially if they are from certain parts of the world.
In a sense, this is a logical decision for the an American nonprofit, comms-wise, fundraising-wise, even legally, but from the outside it looks like an area where WMF's operational, domestic priorities are winning out over its wider global responsibilities, increasing other risks in the process.
Best
Stuart Prior User:Battleofalma
(1) https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804
On 9 Oct 2025, at 10:46, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Victoria
Just as you posted this I was on Meta writing a post (1) asking to know what the Board's real reasons were but it seems you have cleared that up
I have been trying to put myself in the Board's shoes over the last few days and, for what it's worth, I suspect I might personally have reached the same conclusion regarding Lane's candidacy. However I don't believe Ravan has said anything that should disqualify her from being on the Board. Bluntly, excluding her has done more meaningful damage to the WMF's reputation than seating her would have done if she had won the election.
Chris
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/.... ..
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:19 AM Victoria Doronina < vdoronina@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
*I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.*
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.*
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all. > > Sincerely, > Hannah Clover > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi all,
For everyone's information, Ravan has this reply:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/...
Regards, William
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 at 22:16, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
2 out 4 of your examples are features related not corporate governance. 1 the support of the community was instrumental but it was going with Foundation Staff. 1 has nothing to do with community, James was re appointed after running again (I was chair at that time I would know).
And that narrative « Community has the power » has been part of the problem.
First there is no such thing as The Community. There is not even A Editors Community. We have many different communities. And most of them are not even part of those discussions…
Second the majority of communities don’t care about all of those topics.
Third The Community is one center of power Foundation is the other. Thinking otherwise is killing any room for the required discussions, compromised and shared decisions.
It’s entertaining the « us versus them » which is the core of the problem.
We are all in the same boat. The world is burning. Free and Neutral knowledge has never been as political as today. But yeah sure let’s have more infighting and focus on the episode we are going through (again, not the first time at all) and not on the systemic issue.
-- Christophe
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 3:41 PM Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Christophe,
I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying, but I have to question the idea that Wikimedia Foundation decisions do not get reversed.
- The VisualEditor was made "opt-in" after being released as the
default.
- The Superprotect software feature was removed.
- Executive Director Lila Tretikov did not remain in her position
long.
- Trustee James Heilman was reseated after being removed.
I don't know that any of these changes was made in a way or on a schedule that properly mitigated or reversed the initial damage, but the changes did happen.
Wikimedia has only one generative power center: the collection of editors who create and refine the content of the wikis. That content is without equal, even among web properties whose annual budgets utterly eclipse that of the Foundation. The Board has some limited amount of power to support and cultivate and focus that power, and has the power to intentionally or unintentionally undermine the value created by editors. But the Board does not have a whole lot of power to actually build something. At least, not power that we've seen thoroughly exercised to date.
Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 11:11 PM Christophe Henner < christophe.henner@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
This decision will not be changed.
When a Board makes a decision it ***knows*** the communities will hate and come after them for, it is not taken lightly. You think, debate, and argue a lot before you act. And when you finally do, it is because you have to.
You do not do that on a whim.
And this is not the first time.
We are in a loop, and it feels like we have grown used to it.
The same scenario repeats again and again. Trustees change, different backgrounds, beliefs, perspectives, yet the underlying dynamics stay the same.
We have a systemic issue that has been with us for years.
The Foundation is still perceived as a community body. It is not, and it never was. It’s a US based organisation operating and protecting the websites and the brands.
Board elections have always been elections in name only. They are a way for the communities to recommend candidates, not to appoint them.
It is long past time we acknowledge that we have built a system with two centers of power, the Foundation and the communities, that do not share that power. This permanent imbalance creates constant tension, wastes time and energy, and ultimately weakens our entire movement.
It is time we face that reality together.
This latest situation is only another symptom of a much deeper problem, one we have chosen to tolerate for too long.
Perhaps we have grown to even love this loop?
But I, for one, am tired of it.
No one here is doing something wrong; it is the system we built that is wrong.
Christophe
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 7:07 AM Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies for the second post, but I had missed Stuart Prior's illuminating post about Ravan J Al-Taie's candidacy. At this particular moment in history, it seems likely that the denial of her candidacy will be the one that brings greater damage to the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation.
For those not familiar with the issue of alleged systematic rape on October 7, I would urge you to read the English Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screams_Without_Words and to consider the underlying sources (primarily, a podcast produced by the *New York Times* which called into question the accuracy of a front page story in the same publication, and was subsequently suppressed), and in the *Intercept.* Briefly, the *Times* drove a story, which two years later remains published, alleging systematic rape, apparently based solely on the unauthenticated testimony of parties who had strong, undisclosed political motivations.
A core argument in the *Jerusalem Post's* case against Ravan rests on the notion that "*According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is a form of antisemitism*." I think most Wikipedians would agree, denying the comparison of two policy positions is hardly compatible with the pursuit of free knowledge.
Above all, I think the greatest possible harm to the Wikimedia Foundation in this instance would derive from any perception -- whether accurate or not -- that the Wikimedia Foundation capitulates to external calls to sanitize an election of specific political views.
-Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:16 AM Stuart Prior via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Victoria,
As per Chris, the explanation is welcome for its clarity.
However, in the case of Ravan, "the risks for the public reputation of WMF” are overriding more things than gender equity here.
My understanding is this decision will be wholly or at least substantively in reaction to the Jerusalem Post piece https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804 (1) on Ravan, and the potential for proliferation of this type of coverage. If so, it’s very concerning to see an article that is effectively a direct demand that she be removed from contention for the board (citing the movement's own UCoC) achieve its goal so easily. It could be there are other things I’m not aware of, but that a major newspaper didn’t pick them up suggests to me that those listed represent the most controversial things anyone can find.
Whether we agree with them or not, the opinions expressed are not outliers within the Wikimedia community globally. If they are considered disqualifying, it effectively excludes any Wikimedian who’s ever shared or “liked" similar social media posts from participating in senior movement governance, as they will no doubt receive similar treatment, especially if they are from certain parts of the world.
In a sense, this is a logical decision for the an American nonprofit, comms-wise, fundraising-wise, even legally, but from the outside it looks like an area where WMF's operational, domestic priorities are winning out over its wider global responsibilities, increasing other risks in the process.
Best
Stuart Prior User:Battleofalma
(1) https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-863804
On 9 Oct 2025, at 10:46, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Victoria
Just as you posted this I was on Meta writing a post (1) asking to know what the Board's real reasons were but it seems you have cleared that up
I have been trying to put myself in the Board's shoes over the last few days and, for what it's worth, I suspect I might personally have reached the same conclusion regarding Lane's candidacy. However I don't believe Ravan has said anything that should disqualify her from being on the Board. Bluntly, excluding her has done more meaningful damage to the WMF's reputation than seating her would have done if she had won the election.
Chris
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/.... ..
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:19 AM Victoria Doronina < vdoronina@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
*I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.*
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.*
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
> It would make sense to add the link to the index of > petitions/complaints at > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... > so they are all centralized. > > Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in > protest. > > "The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good > governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by > excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without > any > clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the > Foundation has violated all of these principles." > > "We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent > decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing > election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, > taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the > legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, > equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since > its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. > The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for > democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight > for > inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only > woman in this electoral process." > > "There have been two candidates rejected without a credible > explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of > experience”, > political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on > falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman > candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer > candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of > the > previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to > representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election > Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to > vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less > representative of the volunteer community." > > At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and > significant parts of the community should result in an immediate > independent investigation or a suspension of the election. > > On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover > clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I > encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this > message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all. > > > > Sincerely, > > Hannah Clover > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, > guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... > > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, > guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Victoria, what you just said should've been stated from the beginning when these candidates were removed. A big part of my reform is that there are broader issues at play here that large portions of the community have been frustrated with for years and I think it's time that things change.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 5:19 a.m. Victoria Doronina vdoronina@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
*I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.*
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.*
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I can't speak as to what Lane was intending with the reference to AI, but given the recent simple summaries scandal, I imagine he wanted to make sure that the WMF actually follows through with this new strategy and that words are not just words but reflected through actions.
I perceived the statement about financial information completely different from you. Lane doesn't imply he's going to disclose non-public financial information in that at all! He's saying that what's public is not easily available or understandable to the average person (I have no idea about most of it myself) and that that should not be the case.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 7:52 a.m. Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Victoria, what you just said should've been stated from the beginning when these candidates were removed. A big part of my reform is that there are broader issues at play here that large portions of the community have been frustrated with for years and I think it's time that things change.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 5:19 a.m. Victoria Doronina vdoronina@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
*I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.*
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.*
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Oh, I missed that first sentence upon a reread. Still, it seems like Lane was implying that a simple refusal would suffice and he wasn't going to do anything drastic on his own terms. The right to information FAQ page seems quite reasonable and the attempt to certify it shows that it's not something he'd just do by himself, he'd need broader support.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 7:56 a.m. Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
I can't speak as to what Lane was intending with the reference to AI, but given the recent simple summaries scandal, I imagine he wanted to make sure that the WMF actually follows through with this new strategy and that words are not just words but reflected through actions.
I perceived the statement about financial information completely different from you. Lane doesn't imply he's going to disclose non-public financial information in that at all! He's saying that what's public is not easily available or understandable to the average person (I have no idea about most of it myself) and that that should not be the case.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 7:52 a.m. Hannah Clover < clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
Victoria, what you just said should've been stated from the beginning when these candidates were removed. A big part of my reform is that there are broader issues at play here that large portions of the community have been frustrated with for years and I think it's time that things change.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 5:19 a.m. Victoria Doronina vdoronina@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
*I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.*
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.*
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
@Victoria: thanks. Just a couple of questions:
1. Is it really not possible to provide vaguely anonymized financial reports to people? (e.g. to candidates)
(P.S. Premising that I do not fully understand the total confidentiality of the WMF financial reports)
If no:
2. Do we really not have a Non Disclosure Agreement for this kind of requests? (e.g. for Lane and for their university team)
Thanks
-valerio
Valerio,
Speaking as someone who had graduated with an accounting adjacent major, the financial reports which accounting students would refer to for their education purposes are already provided for at https://wikimediafoundation.org/who-we-are/financial-reports/. The information in these reports is usually sufficient for academic purposes. Further information or details are really not necessary in general.
My understanding from earlier conversations with Lane (in the Discord server) is that Lane wanted to use the social capital behind the position to empower students or further analysis into the financials. What Victoria alludes to is there is a potential for private information beyond what's provided publicly being shared in such endeavours whether it would be accidentally or purposefully. Would Lane do it? Probably not. But is that how the organization interpret the statement? Probably yes.
Regards, Robert
-----Original Message----- From: Valerio Bozzolan via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 9:14 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Valerio Bozzolan boz@reyboz.it Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Petition for WMF Board reform
@Victoria: thanks. Just a couple of questions:
1. Is it really not possible to provide vaguely anonymized financial reports to people? (e.g. to candidates)
(P.S. Premising that I do not fully understand the total confidentiality of the WMF financial reports)
If no:
2. Do we really not have a Non Disclosure Agreement for this kind of requests? (e.g. for Lane and for their university team)
Thanks
-valerio _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Thank you Victoria for providing further information on the recent events. This is particularly necessary given the actions taken by you as members of the Board. To quote your own words, I would like to say that:
- “Future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation.” If this was the reasoning behind Ravan's removal, I would kindly ask you to share with us the full reasoning behind the foundation's ponderation to determine that Ravan's social media post warranted her removal from the electoral process. Being a woman adds an additional layer of consequences as is quoted in many international consensus of removal of women into political processes. If you indicate that it is valid to restrict a person's human rights in order to protect reputation, could you provide more information about what that potential reputational damage means for the foundation? Based on what materials was it concluded that Ravan could jeopardize the movement? - Particularly this reasoning is highly concerning because it sets a negative precedent for the Right to freedom of expression of Wikimedians who may want to participate in the future, as they will be affected by *chilling effects *(1) that will censor their thoughts in advance and, as a result, their desire to participate in an election, which irreversibly affects the diversity and legitimacy of the future electoral process itself. Second, and more importantly, when you say “the press,” you are referring specifically to The Jerusalem Post, a news website that, like others, is subject to scrutiny and does not represent a unanimous position. Moreover, if it is the media outlet being referred to in public, it is one with clear and declared biases. Could you share this ponderation? - If the Board supported his reasoning, then it echoed the allegations made by the media outlet in question. In other words, in its consideration of restricting a human right, the Board based its reasoning on the fact that Ravan posted an image with a red Palestinian triangle on his social media accounts—an image with historical roots, as the Wikipedia article points out (2). If this is the case, this fact does not mean that Ravan has in any way called for any kind of violent action or that it can be classified among the most common reasons for restricting the Right to freedom of expression. As can be read in the letters that the community has endorsed against this action(3), this is particularly worrying because the opinions of future Board candidates (including women and other diverse groups) will then be subject to opaque scrutiny, without clear and stablished rules and based on vague concepts such as “reputation.” Just to give one example, at the international level, many laws that punished conduct against “reputation” have been repealed because of the high probability of committing injustices based on bias. - Third, and no less important, in the past, some current and former Board members have shared controversial thoughts on their social media accounts about current wars and conflicts on the world, and we have never seen any assessment of their continued permanency on the Board in this matter. Is it the case that there was a double standard for Ravan?
Best regards,
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_triangle_(Palestinian_symbol) (3) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re...
El jue, 9 oct 2025 a las 6:19, Victoria Doronina (vdoronina@wikimedia.org) escribió:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
*I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.*
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.*
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
In the light of candidates being rejected based on public views on social media, it seems logical the remaining candidates and WMF board members are subject to the same scrutiny as Lane and Ravan. A failure to meet the same criteria would be unacceptable.
I hope that we can see all trustees being held to account for past social media posts for anything that American and international press would find offensive, so nothing will ever again be controversial for the WMF's "reputation" or "brand" and we can look forward to all future WMF Boards, and presumably Affiliates, meeting this high standard of 100% non-controversial volunteers who themselves are not members of any controversial minority groups, like the newly criminalized "anti-fascists".
Reminder current candidates are listed at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidat... The current 12 board members are listed at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Board_of_Trustees#Curre...
However their social media accounts have not yet been listed on meta, could the WMF please ensure these are added, for the same transparency they require from the 2025 candidates?
Thanks in advance for any more official clarification from the WMF Board, as it exists today.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 13:51, Ivan Martínez galaver@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Victoria for providing further information on the recent events. This is particularly necessary given the actions taken by you as members of the Board. To quote your own words, I would like to say that:
“Future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation.” If this was the reasoning behind Ravan's removal, I would kindly ask you to share with us the full reasoning behind the foundation's ponderation to determine that Ravan's social media post warranted her removal from the electoral process. Being a woman adds an additional layer of consequences as is quoted in many international consensus of removal of women into political processes. If you indicate that it is valid to restrict a person's human rights in order to protect reputation, could you provide more information about what that potential reputational damage means for the foundation? Based on what materials was it concluded that Ravan could jeopardize the movement? Particularly this reasoning is highly concerning because it sets a negative precedent for the Right to freedom of expression of Wikimedians who may want to participate in the future, as they will be affected by chilling effects (1) that will censor their thoughts in advance and, as a result, their desire to participate in an election, which irreversibly affects the diversity and legitimacy of the future electoral process itself. Second, and more importantly, when you say “the press,” you are referring specifically to The Jerusalem Post, a news website that, like others, is subject to scrutiny and does not represent a unanimous position. Moreover, if it is the media outlet being referred to in public, it is one with clear and declared biases. Could you share this ponderation? If the Board supported his reasoning, then it echoed the allegations made by the media outlet in question. In other words, in its consideration of restricting a human right, the Board based its reasoning on the fact that Ravan posted an image with a red Palestinian triangle on his social media accounts—an image with historical roots, as the Wikipedia article points out (2). If this is the case, this fact does not mean that Ravan has in any way called for any kind of violent action or that it can be classified among the most common reasons for restricting the Right to freedom of expression. As can be read in the letters that the community has endorsed against this action(3), this is particularly worrying because the opinions of future Board candidates (including women and other diverse groups) will then be subject to opaque scrutiny, without clear and stablished rules and based on vague concepts such as “reputation.” Just to give one example, at the international level, many laws that punished conduct against “reputation” have been repealed because of the high probability of committing injustices based on bias. Third, and no less important, in the past, some current and former Board members have shared controversial thoughts on their social media accounts about current wars and conflicts on the world, and we have never seen any assessment of their continued permanency on the Board in this matter. Is it the case that there was a double standard for Ravan?
Best regards,
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_triangle_(Palestinian_symbol) (3) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re...
El jue, 9 oct 2025 a las 6:19, Victoria Doronina (vdoronina@wikimedia.org) escribió:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - this is not true, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know.
Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
I set up a Right to Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Iván Martínez Voluntario - Wikimedia México A.C. User:ProtoplasmaKid
// Mis comunicaciones respecto a Wikipedia/Wikimedia pueden tener una moratoria en su atención debido a que es un voluntariado. // Ayuda a proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora: https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Victoria,
Thank you for at least presenting your personal perspective on the disqualification of these 2 candidates.
I have to say, though, this seems to me like the least charitable possible view anyone could have taken from both candidates' statements.
I'm sure this is not what you intended, but what I read from your message is that:
1️⃣ A bad-faith smear campaign from Israel will be enough to rule out any candidate who posts pro-Palestine, anti-Zionist messages, and disenfranchise voters who would support a candidate who opposes Israel's genocide of the Palestinians.
2️⃣ A single Board member having expressed anti-Israel comments on social media is more likely to bring the WMF into disrepute than rumours of the Foundation being careful to appease the ADL, a propagandist organisation that disseminates disinformation, that conflates any criticism of Israel with antisemitism and that denies that a genocide is currently occurring in territories under Israeli control.
3️⃣ A candidate who is looking to increase transparency and help the community better understand the work of the Board is immediately assumed to be incapable of recognising a need for privacy around any of those areas — even despite that candidate already being trusted by 2 different Affiliates with equivalently sensitive Board-level information.
If the vetting process is immediately assuming pro-Palestinian viewpoints and pro-transparency viewpoints to be incompatible with Board membership, then the vetting process is not fit for purpose.
I am finding it increasingly difficult to trust the judgement of a Board who thinks these 2 candidates are so dangerous that they cannot be voted on or trusted to be onboarded appropriately. This is exacerbated when the most recent other activities I have seen from the Board are replacing a queer woman of colour from a non Free nation-state of the Global South with a white financier from New York City (who I am sure is very competent) and publishing a policy that seems solely designed to stop the Arabic-language Wikipedia from displaying a flag on its logo because it makes some people who are currently supporting a genocide feel uncomfortable.
The Board seems to think the extremist viewpoints of the news media of a country that is being condemned by a substantial proportion of the planet are more important to its reputation than representing the wider community and its diversity. Given that the Foundation is hosted and staffed predominantly from a country that is currently falling to anti-democratic extremism, it is hard to have trust and hope that the Foundation is willing and able to fight for knowledge and diversity in the face of rising hate and disinformation.
(To be clear, I too am writing as an individual, not as a representative of any organisation I am a part of.)
I also wanted to say that I welcome other people's voices on the discussion page on my reform petition. My story is just one of many and our collective voices matter.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 10:44 a.m. Owen Blacker owen@blacker.me.uk wrote:
Hi Victoria,
Thank you for at least presenting your personal perspective on the disqualification of these 2 candidates.
I have to say, though, this seems to me like the least charitable possible view anyone could have taken from both candidates' statements.
I'm sure this is not what you intended, but what I read from your message is that:
1️⃣ A bad-faith smear campaign from Israel will be enough to rule out any candidate who posts pro-Palestine, anti-Zionist messages, and disenfranchise voters who would support a candidate who opposes Israel's genocide of the Palestinians.
2️⃣ A single Board member having expressed anti-Israel comments on social media is more likely to bring the WMF into disrepute than rumours of the Foundation being careful to appease the ADL, a propagandist organisation that disseminates disinformation, that conflates any criticism of Israel with antisemitism and that denies that a genocide is currently occurring in territories under Israeli control.
3️⃣ A candidate who is looking to increase transparency and help the community better understand the work of the Board is immediately assumed to be incapable of recognising a need for privacy around any of those areas — even despite that candidate already being trusted by 2 different Affiliates with equivalently sensitive Board-level information.
If the vetting process is immediately assuming pro-Palestinian viewpoints and pro-transparency viewpoints to be incompatible with Board membership, then the vetting process is not fit for purpose.
I am finding it increasingly difficult to trust the judgement of a Board who thinks these 2 candidates are so dangerous that they cannot be voted on or trusted to be onboarded appropriately. This is exacerbated when the most recent other activities I have seen from the Board are replacing a queer woman of colour from a non Free nation-state of the Global South with a white financier from New York City (who I am sure is very competent) and publishing a policy that seems solely designed to stop the Arabic-language Wikipedia from displaying a flag on its logo because it makes some people who are currently supporting a genocide feel uncomfortable.
The Board seems to think the extremist viewpoints of the news media of a country that is being condemned by a substantial proportion of the planet are more important to its reputation than representing the wider community and its diversity. Given that the Foundation is hosted and staffed predominantly from a country that is currently falling to anti-democratic extremism, it is hard to have trust and hope that the Foundation is willing and able to fight for knowledge and diversity in the face of rising hate and disinformation.
(To be clear, I too am writing as an individual, not as a representative of any organisation I am a part of.)
-- Owen Blacker, Cardiff GB, he/him User:OwenBlacker _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Oops, I said that already. Sorry, carry on 😅.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 10:58 a.m. Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
I also wanted to say that I welcome other people's voices on the discussion page on my reform petition. My story is just one of many and our collective voices matter.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 10:44 a.m. Owen Blacker owen@blacker.me.uk wrote:
Hi Victoria,
Thank you for at least presenting your personal perspective on the disqualification of these 2 candidates.
I have to say, though, this seems to me like the least charitable possible view anyone could have taken from both candidates' statements.
I'm sure this is not what you intended, but what I read from your message is that:
1️⃣ A bad-faith smear campaign from Israel will be enough to rule out any candidate who posts pro-Palestine, anti-Zionist messages, and disenfranchise voters who would support a candidate who opposes Israel's genocide of the Palestinians.
2️⃣ A single Board member having expressed anti-Israel comments on social media is more likely to bring the WMF into disrepute than rumours of the Foundation being careful to appease the ADL, a propagandist organisation that disseminates disinformation, that conflates any criticism of Israel with antisemitism and that denies that a genocide is currently occurring in territories under Israeli control.
3️⃣ A candidate who is looking to increase transparency and help the community better understand the work of the Board is immediately assumed to be incapable of recognising a need for privacy around any of those areas — even despite that candidate already being trusted by 2 different Affiliates with equivalently sensitive Board-level information.
If the vetting process is immediately assuming pro-Palestinian viewpoints and pro-transparency viewpoints to be incompatible with Board membership, then the vetting process is not fit for purpose.
I am finding it increasingly difficult to trust the judgement of a Board who thinks these 2 candidates are so dangerous that they cannot be voted on or trusted to be onboarded appropriately. This is exacerbated when the most recent other activities I have seen from the Board are replacing a queer woman of colour from a non Free nation-state of the Global South with a white financier from New York City (who I am sure is very competent) and publishing a policy that seems solely designed to stop the Arabic-language Wikipedia from displaying a flag on its logo because it makes some people who are currently supporting a genocide feel uncomfortable.
The Board seems to think the extremist viewpoints of the news media of a country that is being condemned by a substantial proportion of the planet are more important to its reputation than representing the wider community and its diversity. Given that the Foundation is hosted and staffed predominantly from a country that is currently falling to anti-democratic extremism, it is hard to have trust and hope that the Foundation is willing and able to fight for knowledge and diversity in the face of rising hate and disinformation.
(To be clear, I too am writing as an individual, not as a representative of any organisation I am a part of.)
-- Owen Blacker, Cardiff GB, he/him User:OwenBlacker _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Aside from all process concerns I have: If we want our leadership to be part of public conversations - heck, if we want *potential* future leaders to be part of critical debate inside and outside of Wikimedia, it is a very dangerous precedent to set that candidates are removed from consideration for posts in the past. This is a dangerous risk in regular politics as well as Wikimedia.
I don't know yet what the right solution would be. If these candidates would pose insurmountable legal risks (I haven't seen the full information available to the board, and I'm sure it was accompanied by a legal analysis of sorts) - we could push back as a community. However, I also realize that the board has a tremendous responsibility. Their duty is to ensure the continued existence of the Wikimedia Foundation forever. And I don't envy their responsibility right now, given the developing political, legal (and financial!) landscape in the United States.
I really appreciate Clovermoss' broader approach to think about solutions. I'm not convinced that the right approach is to push through candidates. I'm really sad for both R. and L.*, who have amazing qualities both, who I admire as a Wikimedian and colleague. Let us acknowledge at least briefly that this must be at the least a bit of a personal drama for them - they did not deserve this. At this time, I'm also not convinced the WMF is doing the right thing to move forward with the election - but honestly, I haven't heard many great alternatives either.
What I do think we really have to ask ourselves in the coming year, is whether our current structure with a WMF board that has both the legal responsibility for everything, and in some way is the only strategy-setting body that we have as a movement, is perhaps placing a bit too much responsibility to place on a single body. I recall that one of the main outcomes of the movement charter process was to address this - and while the specifics of that solution were maybe not perfect, this drama does reinforce to me that the principal idea of moving away to a more balanced system may be more important than ever.
Lodewijk
*(just abbreviating their names here because I don't like that our discussions on this will be the results of search queries for eternity)
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 5:06 PM Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Oops, I said that already. Sorry, carry on 😅.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 10:58 a.m. Hannah Clover < clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
I also wanted to say that I welcome other people's voices on the discussion page on my reform petition. My story is just one of many and our collective voices matter.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 10:44 a.m. Owen Blacker owen@blacker.me.uk wrote:
Hi Victoria,
Thank you for at least presenting your personal perspective on the disqualification of these 2 candidates.
I have to say, though, this seems to me like the least charitable possible view anyone could have taken from both candidates' statements.
I'm sure this is not what you intended, but what I read from your message is that:
1️⃣ A bad-faith smear campaign from Israel will be enough to rule out any candidate who posts pro-Palestine, anti-Zionist messages, and disenfranchise voters who would support a candidate who opposes Israel's genocide of the Palestinians.
2️⃣ A single Board member having expressed anti-Israel comments on social media is more likely to bring the WMF into disrepute than rumours of the Foundation being careful to appease the ADL, a propagandist organisation that disseminates disinformation, that conflates any criticism of Israel with antisemitism and that denies that a genocide is currently occurring in territories under Israeli control.
3️⃣ A candidate who is looking to increase transparency and help the community better understand the work of the Board is immediately assumed to be incapable of recognising a need for privacy around any of those areas — even despite that candidate already being trusted by 2 different Affiliates with equivalently sensitive Board-level information.
If the vetting process is immediately assuming pro-Palestinian viewpoints and pro-transparency viewpoints to be incompatible with Board membership, then the vetting process is not fit for purpose.
I am finding it increasingly difficult to trust the judgement of a Board who thinks these 2 candidates are so dangerous that they cannot be voted on or trusted to be onboarded appropriately. This is exacerbated when the most recent other activities I have seen from the Board are replacing a queer woman of colour from a non Free nation-state of the Global South with a white financier from New York City (who I am sure is very competent) and publishing a policy that seems solely designed to stop the Arabic-language Wikipedia from displaying a flag on its logo because it makes some people who are currently supporting a genocide feel uncomfortable.
The Board seems to think the extremist viewpoints of the news media of a country that is being condemned by a substantial proportion of the planet are more important to its reputation than representing the wider community and its diversity. Given that the Foundation is hosted and staffed predominantly from a country that is currently falling to anti-democratic extremism, it is hard to have trust and hope that the Foundation is willing and able to fight for knowledge and diversity in the face of rising hate and disinformation.
(To be clear, I too am writing as an individual, not as a representative of any organisation I am a part of.)
-- Owen Blacker, Cardiff GB, he/him User:OwenBlacker _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hello Lodewijk. As we have said in our letters, what should happen as a solution is that this process *should be halted and a new one begun*, as this one is clearly marred by irreversible situations, improvised decisions, and exclusions that are gradually becoming clear. Hopefully, the Board will have the sensitivity and humility to be able to get back on track.
El vie, 10 oct 2025 a las 3:15, effe iets anders (effeietsanders@gmail.com) escribió:
Aside from all process concerns I have: If we want our leadership to be part of public conversations - heck, if we want *potential* future leaders to be part of critical debate inside and outside of Wikimedia, it is a very dangerous precedent to set that candidates are removed from consideration for posts in the past. This is a dangerous risk in regular politics as well as Wikimedia.
I don't know yet what the right solution would be. If these candidates would pose insurmountable legal risks (I haven't seen the full information available to the board, and I'm sure it was accompanied by a legal analysis of sorts) - we could push back as a community. However, I also realize that the board has a tremendous responsibility. Their duty is to ensure the continued existence of the Wikimedia Foundation forever. And I don't envy their responsibility right now, given the developing political, legal (and financial!) landscape in the United States.
I really appreciate Clovermoss' broader approach to think about solutions. I'm not convinced that the right approach is to push through candidates. I'm really sad for both R. and L.*, who have amazing qualities both, who I admire as a Wikimedian and colleague. Let us acknowledge at least briefly that this must be at the least a bit of a personal drama for them - they did not deserve this. At this time, I'm also not convinced the WMF is doing the right thing to move forward with the election - but honestly, I haven't heard many great alternatives either.
What I do think we really have to ask ourselves in the coming year, is whether our current structure with a WMF board that has both the legal responsibility for everything, and in some way is the only strategy-setting body that we have as a movement, is perhaps placing a bit too much responsibility to place on a single body. I recall that one of the main outcomes of the movement charter process was to address this - and while the specifics of that solution were maybe not perfect, this drama does reinforce to me that the principal idea of moving away to a more balanced system may be more important than ever.
Lodewijk
*(just abbreviating their names here because I don't like that our discussions on this will be the results of search queries for eternity)
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 5:06 PM Hannah Clover < clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
Oops, I said that already. Sorry, carry on 😅.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 10:58 a.m. Hannah Clover < clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
I also wanted to say that I welcome other people's voices on the discussion page on my reform petition. My story is just one of many and our collective voices matter.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 10:44 a.m. Owen Blacker owen@blacker.me.uk wrote:
Hi Victoria,
Thank you for at least presenting your personal perspective on the disqualification of these 2 candidates.
I have to say, though, this seems to me like the least charitable possible view anyone could have taken from both candidates' statements.
I'm sure this is not what you intended, but what I read from your message is that:
1️⃣ A bad-faith smear campaign from Israel will be enough to rule out any candidate who posts pro-Palestine, anti-Zionist messages, and disenfranchise voters who would support a candidate who opposes Israel's genocide of the Palestinians.
2️⃣ A single Board member having expressed anti-Israel comments on social media is more likely to bring the WMF into disrepute than rumours of the Foundation being careful to appease the ADL, a propagandist organisation that disseminates disinformation, that conflates any criticism of Israel with antisemitism and that denies that a genocide is currently occurring in territories under Israeli control.
3️⃣ A candidate who is looking to increase transparency and help the community better understand the work of the Board is immediately assumed to be incapable of recognising a need for privacy around any of those areas — even despite that candidate already being trusted by 2 different Affiliates with equivalently sensitive Board-level information.
If the vetting process is immediately assuming pro-Palestinian viewpoints and pro-transparency viewpoints to be incompatible with Board membership, then the vetting process is not fit for purpose.
I am finding it increasingly difficult to trust the judgement of a Board who thinks these 2 candidates are so dangerous that they cannot be voted on or trusted to be onboarded appropriately. This is exacerbated when the most recent other activities I have seen from the Board are replacing a queer woman of colour from a non Free nation-state of the Global South with a white financier from New York City (who I am sure is very competent) and publishing a policy that seems solely designed to stop the Arabic-language Wikipedia from displaying a flag on its logo because it makes some people who are currently supporting a genocide feel uncomfortable.
The Board seems to think the extremist viewpoints of the news media of a country that is being condemned by a substantial proportion of the planet are more important to its reputation than representing the wider community and its diversity. Given that the Foundation is hosted and staffed predominantly from a country that is currently falling to anti-democratic extremism, it is hard to have trust and hope that the Foundation is willing and able to fight for knowledge and diversity in the face of rising hate and disinformation.
(To be clear, I too am writing as an individual, not as a representative of any organisation I am a part of.)
-- Owen Blacker, Cardiff GB, he/him User:OwenBlacker _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I think that is a reasonable position - and I also feel that there are reasonable arguments to continue (e.g. if the situation is likely to just repeat itself - would that help anything?). I have not yet made up my mind, I don't know enough about the underlying reasons. What I do know, is that the current situation is a mess.
I however don't think we should halt the longer term discussion until the short-ish scenario has entirely played out. My impression was that this thread is focused on that longer term, and I'll observe the shorter-term conversation for more arguments.
Lodewijk
On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 3:21 PM Ivan Martínez galaver@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Lodewijk. As we have said in our letters, what should happen as a solution is that this process *should be halted and a new one begun*, as this one is clearly marred by irreversible situations, improvised decisions, and exclusions that are gradually becoming clear. Hopefully, the Board will have the sensitivity and humility to be able to get back on track.
El vie, 10 oct 2025 a las 3:15, effe iets anders (< effeietsanders@gmail.com>) escribió:
Aside from all process concerns I have: If we want our leadership to be part of public conversations - heck, if we want *potential* future leaders to be part of critical debate inside and outside of Wikimedia, it is a very dangerous precedent to set that candidates are removed from consideration for posts in the past. This is a dangerous risk in regular politics as well as Wikimedia.
I don't know yet what the right solution would be. If these candidates would pose insurmountable legal risks (I haven't seen the full information available to the board, and I'm sure it was accompanied by a legal analysis of sorts) - we could push back as a community. However, I also realize that the board has a tremendous responsibility. Their duty is to ensure the continued existence of the Wikimedia Foundation forever. And I don't envy their responsibility right now, given the developing political, legal (and financial!) landscape in the United States.
I really appreciate Clovermoss' broader approach to think about solutions. I'm not convinced that the right approach is to push through candidates. I'm really sad for both R. and L.*, who have amazing qualities both, who I admire as a Wikimedian and colleague. Let us acknowledge at least briefly that this must be at the least a bit of a personal drama for them - they did not deserve this. At this time, I'm also not convinced the WMF is doing the right thing to move forward with the election - but honestly, I haven't heard many great alternatives either.
What I do think we really have to ask ourselves in the coming year, is whether our current structure with a WMF board that has both the legal responsibility for everything, and in some way is the only strategy-setting body that we have as a movement, is perhaps placing a bit too much responsibility to place on a single body. I recall that one of the main outcomes of the movement charter process was to address this - and while the specifics of that solution were maybe not perfect, this drama does reinforce to me that the principal idea of moving away to a more balanced system may be more important than ever.
Lodewijk
*(just abbreviating their names here because I don't like that our discussions on this will be the results of search queries for eternity)
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 5:06 PM Hannah Clover < clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
Oops, I said that already. Sorry, carry on 😅.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 10:58 a.m. Hannah Clover < clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
I also wanted to say that I welcome other people's voices on the discussion page on my reform petition. My story is just one of many and our collective voices matter.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 10:44 a.m. Owen Blacker owen@blacker.me.uk wrote:
Hi Victoria,
Thank you for at least presenting your personal perspective on the disqualification of these 2 candidates.
I have to say, though, this seems to me like the least charitable possible view anyone could have taken from both candidates' statements.
I'm sure this is not what you intended, but what I read from your message is that:
1️⃣ A bad-faith smear campaign from Israel will be enough to rule out any candidate who posts pro-Palestine, anti-Zionist messages, and disenfranchise voters who would support a candidate who opposes Israel's genocide of the Palestinians.
2️⃣ A single Board member having expressed anti-Israel comments on social media is more likely to bring the WMF into disrepute than rumours of the Foundation being careful to appease the ADL, a propagandist organisation that disseminates disinformation, that conflates any criticism of Israel with antisemitism and that denies that a genocide is currently occurring in territories under Israeli control.
3️⃣ A candidate who is looking to increase transparency and help the community better understand the work of the Board is immediately assumed to be incapable of recognising a need for privacy around any of those areas — even despite that candidate already being trusted by 2 different Affiliates with equivalently sensitive Board-level information.
If the vetting process is immediately assuming pro-Palestinian viewpoints and pro-transparency viewpoints to be incompatible with Board membership, then the vetting process is not fit for purpose.
I am finding it increasingly difficult to trust the judgement of a Board who thinks these 2 candidates are so dangerous that they cannot be voted on or trusted to be onboarded appropriately. This is exacerbated when the most recent other activities I have seen from the Board are replacing a queer woman of colour from a non Free nation-state of the Global South with a white financier from New York City (who I am sure is very competent) and publishing a policy that seems solely designed to stop the Arabic-language Wikipedia from displaying a flag on its logo because it makes some people who are currently supporting a genocide feel uncomfortable.
The Board seems to think the extremist viewpoints of the news media of a country that is being condemned by a substantial proportion of the planet are more important to its reputation than representing the wider community and its diversity. Given that the Foundation is hosted and staffed predominantly from a country that is currently falling to anti-democratic extremism, it is hard to have trust and hope that the Foundation is willing and able to fight for knowledge and diversity in the face of rising hate and disinformation.
(To be clear, I too am writing as an individual, not as a representative of any organisation I am a part of.)
-- Owen Blacker, Cardiff GB, he/him User:OwenBlacker _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- *Iván Martínez*
*Voluntario - Wikimedia México A.C.User:ProtoplasmaKid *
// Mis comunicaciones respecto a Wikipedia/Wikimedia pueden tener una moratoria en su atención debido a que es un voluntariado. // Ayuda a proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora: https://donate.wikimedia.org
It helps provide some context for current statements this week by Wikimedia Foundation board members about freedom of speech, compared to what they used to say when they wanted your vote. This is especially sharp as it has gradually been revealed that the rejection is based on their perceptions, rather than facts, about what the candidates had posted, or might at some point perhaps post on social media, along with apparently taking extremist press including blatant misinformation as a starting point for a "fixing" or political censorship of the Wikimedia vote process.
If the following trustees no longer stand by their own election candidate statements or other published robust defenses of free speech, please resign now and stand for your stated values, or just restart the vote to include the original 6 candidates.
== Statements about freedom of speech and diversity. ==
Trustee Nataliia Tymkiv "I believe it is important to have a Thriving Movement: we need to welcome newcomers and commit to providing more timely and responsive support to affiliates, and to our communities at large. Diversity and inclusion are not buzz-words for me - they have guided our successful recruitment efforts at the Board level these past years." https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Nominati...
Trustee Mike Peel "Safe and collaborative spaces are really important. While I do not have experience with creating them, I support and encourage them as much as I can. I have also seen the after-effects of dictatorships and censorship in both Brasil and Spain, although I have not experienced it directly: the best I can do is to help document this and hope it doesn't happen again in the future." https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Candidat...
Trustee Jimmy Wales "I'm a big advocate of freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of thought." 2005 interview with The Independent.
Trustee Shani Evenstein "I’ve always been interested in, and later advocated for, freedom of expression and choice, anti-censorship, anti-repression, and for Open Knowledge as a basic human right." https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Candidat...
Trustee Christel Steigenberger "Only by inviting as many viewpoints in as possible, by discussing and reflecting about all the different perspectives on the world and all there is to know about it, can we continue to hold up the commitment of freely sharing the sum of all knowledge with every single human being." https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2024/Question...
Thanks for sharing LC.
Hopefully, these statements will translate into concrete actions. As human beings, the members of the Board are susceptible to error. But there is still an opportunity for the statements to influence urgent decision-making.
Best regards,
*Iván Martínez*
*Voluntario - Wikimedia México A.C.User:ProtoplasmaKid *
// Mis comunicaciones respecto a Wikipedia/Wikimedia pueden tener una moratoria en su atención debido a que es un voluntariado. // Ayuda a proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora: https://donate.wikimedia.org
El vie, 10 de oct de 2025, 14:08, L C zinkloss@gmail.com escribió:
It helps provide some context for current statements this week by Wikimedia Foundation board members about freedom of speech, compared to what they used to say when they wanted your vote. This is especially sharp as it has gradually been revealed that the rejection is based on their perceptions, rather than facts, about what the candidates had posted, or might at some point perhaps post on social media, along with apparently taking extremist press including blatant misinformation as a starting point for a "fixing" or political censorship of the Wikimedia vote process.
If the following trustees no longer stand by their own election candidate statements or other published robust defenses of free speech, please resign now and stand for your stated values, or just restart the vote to include the original 6 candidates.
== Statements about freedom of speech and diversity. ==
Trustee Nataliia Tymkiv "I believe it is important to have a Thriving Movement: we need to welcome newcomers and commit to providing more timely and responsive support to affiliates, and to our communities at large. Diversity and inclusion are not buzz-words for me - they have guided our successful recruitment efforts at the Board level these past years."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Nominati...
Trustee Mike Peel "Safe and collaborative spaces are really important. While I do not have experience with creating them, I support and encourage them as much as I can. I have also seen the after-effects of dictatorships and censorship in both Brasil and Spain, although I have not experienced it directly: the best I can do is to help document this and hope it doesn't happen again in the future."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Candidat...
Trustee Jimmy Wales "I'm a big advocate of freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of thought." 2005 interview with The Independent.
Trustee Shani Evenstein "I’ve always been interested in, and later advocated for, freedom of expression and choice, anti-censorship, anti-repression, and for Open Knowledge as a basic human right."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Candidat...
Trustee Christel Steigenberger "Only by inviting as many viewpoints in as possible, by discussing and reflecting about all the different perspectives on the world and all there is to know about it, can we continue to hold up the commitment of freely sharing the sum of all knowledge with every single human being."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2024/Question... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
The Board selfappoints ALL its members. This has always been the case and still is.
They want some of the members to have competence of and relation to the communities, but a concept of an election of Board members by and from the communities is and has always been a hallucination.
If we, the communities, want something different, we must by our self and independent (also financially) create a body, truly elected, and demand from the board a process that utilize this body to fill seats that represent the community
It is no use we kick and scream around a reality that does not exist
Anders
Den 2025-10-10 kl. 08:14, skrev effe iets anders:
Aside from all process concerns I have: If we want our leadership to be part of public conversations - heck, if we want *potential* future leaders to be part of critical debate inside and outside of Wikimedia, it is a very dangerous precedent to set that candidates are removed from consideration for posts in the past. This is a dangerous risk in regular politics as well as Wikimedia.
I don't know yet what the right solution would be. If these candidates would pose insurmountable legal risks (I haven't seen the full information available to the board, and I'm sure it was accompanied by a legal analysis of sorts) - we could push back as a community. However, I also realize that the board has a tremendous responsibility. Their duty is to ensure the continued existence of the Wikimedia Foundation forever. And I don't envy their responsibility right now, given the developing political, legal (and financial!) landscape in the United States.
I really appreciate Clovermoss' broader approach to think about solutions. I'm not convinced that the right approach is to push through candidates. I'm really sad for both R. and L.*, who have amazing qualities both, who I admire as a Wikimedian and colleague. Let us acknowledge at least briefly that this must be at the least a bit of a personal drama for them - they did not deserve this. At this time, I'm also not convinced the WMF is doing the right thing to move forward with the election - but honestly, I haven't heard many great alternatives either.
What I do think we really have to ask ourselves in the coming year, is whether our current structure with a WMF board that has both the legal responsibility for everything, and in some way is the only strategy-setting body that we have as a movement, is perhaps placing a bit too much responsibility to place on a single body. I recall that one of the main outcomes of the movement charter process was to address this - and while the specifics of that solution were maybe not perfect, this drama does reinforce to me that the principal idea of moving away to a more balanced system may be more important than ever.
Lodewijk
*(just abbreviating their names here because I don't like that our discussions on this will be the results of search queries for eternity)
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 5:06 PM Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Oops, I said that already. Sorry, carry on 😅. On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 10:58 a.m. Hannah Clover <clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com> wrote: I also wanted to say that I welcome other people's voices on the discussion page on my reform petition. My story is just one of many and our collective voices matter. On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, 10:44 a.m. Owen Blacker <owen@blacker.me.uk> wrote: Hi Victoria, Thank you for at least presenting your personal perspective on the disqualification of these 2 candidates. I have to say, though, this seems to me like the least charitable possible view anyone could have taken from both candidates' statements. I'm sure this is not what you intended, but what I read from your message is that: 1️⃣ A bad-faith smear campaign from Israel will be enough to rule out any candidate who posts pro-Palestine, anti-Zionist messages, and disenfranchise voters who would support a candidate who opposes Israel's genocide of the Palestinians. 2️⃣ A single Board member having expressed anti-Israel comments on social media is more likely to bring the WMF into disrepute than rumours of the Foundation being careful to appease the ADL, a propagandist organisation that disseminates disinformation, that conflates any criticism of Israel with antisemitism and that denies that a genocide is currently occurring in territories under Israeli control. 3️⃣ A candidate who is looking to increase transparency and help the community better understand the work of the Board is immediately assumed to be incapable of recognising a need for privacy around any of those areas — even despite that candidate already being trusted by 2 different Affiliates with equivalently sensitive Board-level information. If the vetting process is immediately assuming pro-Palestinian viewpoints and pro-transparency viewpoints to be incompatible with Board membership, then the vetting process is not fit for purpose. I am finding it increasingly difficult to trust the judgement of a Board who thinks these 2 candidates are so dangerous that they cannot be voted on or trusted to be onboarded appropriately. This is exacerbated when the most recent other activities I have seen from the Board are replacing a queer woman of colour from a non Free nation-state of the Global South with a white financier from New York City (who I am sure is very competent) and publishing a policy that seems solely designed to stop the Arabic-language Wikipedia from displaying a flag on its logo because it makes some people who are currently supporting a genocide feel uncomfortable. The Board seems to think the extremist viewpoints of the news media of a country that is being condemned by a substantial proportion of the planet are more important to its reputation than representing the wider community and its diversity. Given that the Foundation is hosted and staffed predominantly from a country that is currently falling to anti-democratic extremism, it is hard to have trust and hope that the Foundation is willing and able to fight for knowledge and diversity in the face of rising hate and disinformation. (To be clear, I too am writing as an individual, not as a representative of any organisation I am a part of.) -- Owen Blacker, Cardiff GB, he/him User:OwenBlacker _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RXF3WVGJDYYQCNILC2EREKXSXTSBXN2V/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/EXMAARA3DDT5PIFED3MMPFKJVY2HDPDS/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear all,
I want to clarify some details following Victoria's email as I know it has caused confusion. This email was not sent in any official capacity - it was Victoria's personal opinion, as she noted there, it was sent "as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information". This email should not be seen as an analysis of the Board's decisions on the candidates for this year's elections process.
I understand that for some, emotions are at an all time high, and people will want to fill in the gaps of what can be shared publicly with their thoughts and opinions. I acknowledge that there is no ideal solution here. Nonetheless, I hope to clarify some things to the extent possible under the circumstances. We have also responded to some of these questions on Meta earlier here [1].
The Board considers a wide range of criteria in evaluating eligible candidates and future leaders. That is why the process includes many inputs, such as background checks, media checks, reference checks, and interviews with the candidates, as we have done in past years. Consistent with the values of our movement, the board has always been committed to free expression, diverse viewpoints, and a range of perspectives, backgrounds and experiences. The Board has always had members – historic and current – who have been critics of the Foundation and of the Board itself. This is the nature of our governance system, and this will not change.
Nat's original message outlined the reasons for how candidates were assessed, including more subjective criteria like a candidate's judgment, discernment, discretion, and ability to engage in the duties and requirements of being a Trustee [2], some of which can be complex and difficult to measure. These conversations covered topics like conflicts of interest, fiduciary obligations of Trustees [2], a track record of commitment to Wikimedia's core principles and values (e.g., upholding NPOV, managing COIs, etc.), as well as a candidate's understanding of the Board's Code of Conduct [3] and other governance policies, and what these policies require of Trustees.
Our decisions were based entirely on these factors, and no others.
We have made a difficult decision as a collective of Trustees, each of us with our own views, and after an active debate, we reached a unanimous agreement. We understand that this has raised questions and concerns that are being taken seriously as we all consider future election reforms to improve this process for all stakeholders, including for the Board itself.
We offer a public apology to any candidate who has felt singled out, as this was never anyone's intent. It is an act of commitment and courage to run for the Board of Trustees – our goal is always to encourage active Wikimedians to grow in their leadership, whether that is service on the Board or in other ways in our movement.
I hope you will vote in the election and continue to share your questions on Meta. We can collectively learn from this process to continue strengthening our movement in an era when we are needed more than ever in the world.
Lorenzo
Il giorno gio, 09/10/2025 alle 10.18 +0100, Victoria Doronina ha scritto:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - this is not true, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta- Wiki [4]
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
I set up a Right to Information [5] project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
[1] on Meta earlier here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/... [2] duties and requirements of being a Trustee https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Legal_and_Fiduciary_Duties_for_Wi... [3] Board's Code of Conduct https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Policy:Code_of_Cond... [4] Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidat... [5] Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information
Thank you, Lorenzo, for this email. In the interest of transparency, I would like to add, if possible, that the Board can publicly share the assessment that was made in light of the parameters you mention, regarding the reasons that were taken to deprive Ravan of the right to participate in an international political process.
Just how the Board's reasoning led to the conclusion that, from what I read, it does not intend to change. Something similar to what is done with controversial court rulings, where the reasoning is expanded upon. I am requesting this because, although you say that the Board respects Freedom of expression, it seems that in the Ravan decision, this was not respected, as I mentioned broadly in this same thread. It is true that they responded on Meta, but that explanation *is really short*.
The WMF has several experts on human rights, and it would be really valuable to have their perspective.
Thanks,
El vie, 10 oct 2025 a las 15:41, Lorenzo (llosa@wikimedia.org) escribió:
Dear all,
I want to clarify some details following Victoria's email as I know it has caused confusion. This email was not sent in any official capacity - it was Victoria's personal opinion, as she noted there, it was sent *"as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information"*. This email should not be seen as an analysis of the Board's decisions on the candidates for this year's elections process.
I understand that for some, emotions are at an all time high, and people will want to fill in the gaps of what can be shared publicly with their thoughts and opinions. I acknowledge that there is no ideal solution here. Nonetheless, I hope to clarify some things to the extent possible under the circumstances. We have also responded to some of these questions on Meta earlier here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2025_update#More_answers_on_the_Board's_decision_on_the_2025_final_ballot .
The Board considers a wide range of criteria in evaluating eligible candidates and future leaders. That is why the process includes many inputs, such as background checks, media checks, reference checks, and interviews with the candidates, as we have done in past years. Consistent with the values of our movement, the board has always been committed to free expression, diverse viewpoints, and a range of perspectives, backgrounds and experiences. The Board has always had members – historic and current – who have been critics of the Foundation and of the Board itself. This is the nature of our governance system, and this will not change.
Nat's original message outlined the reasons for how candidates were assessed, including more subjective criteria like a candidate's judgment, discernment, discretion, and ability to engage in the duties and requirements of being a Trustee https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Legal_and_Fiduciary_Duties_for_Wikimedia_Foundation_Trustees_Public_Version.pdf, some of which can be complex and difficult to measure. These conversations covered topics like conflicts of interest, fiduciary obligations of Trustees https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Legal_and_Fiduciary_Duties_for_Wikimedia_Foundation_Trustees_Public_Version.pdf, a track record of commitment to Wikimedia's core principles and values (e.g., upholding NPOV, managing COIs, etc.), as well as a candidate's understanding of the Board's Code of Conduct https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Policy:Code_of_Conduct_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees and other governance policies, and what these policies require of Trustees.
Our decisions were based entirely on these factors, and no others.
We have made a difficult decision as a collective of Trustees, each of us with our own views, and after an active debate, we reached a unanimous agreement. We understand that this has raised questions and concerns that are being taken seriously as we all consider future election reforms to improve this process for all stakeholders, including for the Board itself.
We offer a public apology to any candidate who has felt singled out, as this was never anyone's intent. It is an act of commitment and courage to run for the Board of Trustees – our goal is always to encourage active Wikimedians to grow in their leadership, whether that is service on the Board or in other ways in our movement.
I hope you will vote in the election and continue to share your questions on Meta. We can collectively learn from this process to continue strengthening our movement in an era when we are needed more than ever in the world.
Lorenzo
Il giorno gio, 09/10/2025 alle 10.18 +0100, Victoria Doronina ha scritto:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
*I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.*
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.*
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 18:41, Lorenzo llosa@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all,
I want to clarify some details following Victoria's email as I know it has caused confusion. This email was not sent in any official capacity - it was Victoria's personal opinion, as she noted there, it was sent "as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information". This email should not be seen as an analysis of the Board's decisions on the candidates for this year's elections process.
I understand that for some, emotions are at an all time high, and people will want to fill in the gaps of what can be shared publicly with their thoughts and opinions. I acknowledge that there is no ideal solution here. Nonetheless, I hope to clarify some things to the extent possible under the circumstances. We have also responded to some of these questions on Meta earlier here.
The Board considers a wide range of criteria in evaluating eligible candidates and future leaders. That is why the process includes many inputs, such as background checks, media checks, reference checks, and interviews with the candidates, as we have done in past years. Consistent with the values of our movement, the board has always been committed to free expression, diverse viewpoints, and a range of perspectives, backgrounds and experiences. The Board has always had members – historic and current – who have been critics of the Foundation and of the Board itself. This is the nature of our governance system, and this will not change.
Nat's original message outlined the reasons for how candidates were assessed, including more subjective criteria like a candidate's judgment, discernment, discretion, and ability to engage in the duties and requirements of being a Trustee, some of which can be complex and difficult to measure. These conversations covered topics like conflicts of interest, fiduciary obligations of Trustees, a track record of commitment to Wikimedia's core principles and values (e.g., upholding NPOV, managing COIs, etc.), as well as a candidate's understanding of the Board's Code of Conduct and other governance policies, and what these policies require of Trustees.
Our decisions were based entirely on these factors, and no others.
We have made a difficult decision as a collective of Trustees, each of us with our own views, and after an active debate, we reached a unanimous agreement. We understand that this has raised questions and concerns that are being taken seriously as we all consider future election reforms to improve this process for all stakeholders, including for the Board itself.
We offer a public apology to any candidate who has felt singled out, as this was never anyone's intent. It is an act of commitment and courage to run for the Board of Trustees – our goal is always to encourage active Wikimedians to grow in their leadership, whether that is service on the Board or in other ways in our movement.
I hope you will vote in the election and continue to share your questions on Meta. We can collectively learn from this process to continue strengthening our movement in an era when we are needed more than ever in the world.
Lorenzo
Il giorno gio, 09/10/2025 alle 10.18 +0100, Victoria Doronina ha scritto:
Lorenzo, in your rush, you re-quoted the misleading allegations, so that's hardly an apology that makes sense no matter how much good faith you have. Your background on free speech is impeccable, apart from this current non-democratic fiasco, so it's surprising you are shouldering any of it.
With "I hope you will vote in the election", you're overlooking the point of the boycott, the right of the community to be free to elect its choice of trustees to represent them. As for the reasoning you have given, this totally ignores that if you want to apply a kind of vague perception test to reject candidates, you (the WMF Board) could and should have done that before the Affiliates invested time in voting to whittle the candidates to a definitive final best 6. Re-start the election process out of respect for the judgement of the Wikimedia community you were elected to represent, or resign over this incompetent chaotic election that will permanently tarnish any "not queer advocate", "not woman" that happens to get elected because the community of voters can only vote for the 4 men you appointed for seats that by resolution not appointed, but now effectively are.
I suggest that these remaining candidates, Bobby Shabangu, James Alexander, Michał Buczyński and Wojciech Pędzich withdraw from the election based on their own public stated ethical values before any are handed a board seat from a corrupted election.
== Previous position on free speech ==
In line with my earlier checking of trustee values, here's Lorenzo Losa during the election to Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 4 years ago: "I live in a reasonably democratic country, but even here, even in the US and in the EU, laws that would restrict users' freedom are proposed every day. Protecting users' rights matters for everyone, everywhere." https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidat...
I always took Victoria's perspective as her own, but I do find it concerning. It's the only one we have so of course people are going to read into it. You can't really have a volunteer "take" on something you're voting on as a board member If that's the perspective at least one person has, it's natural to wonder if other people voting on the same perceptions.
It'd be different if we had the knowledge of what other board members perspectives were but we don't. Silence is often take as agreement, especially when no other board members are publically disagreeing with the given interpretation. We don't even have confirmation on whether or not other people agreed with her, but an "unanimous" decision has implications.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2025, 2:30 p.m. L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 18:41, Lorenzo llosa@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all,
I want to clarify some details following Victoria's email as I know it
has caused confusion. This email was not sent in any official capacity - it was Victoria's personal opinion, as she noted there, it was sent "as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information". This email should not be seen as an analysis of the Board's decisions on the candidates for this year's elections process.
I understand that for some, emotions are at an all time high, and people
will want to fill in the gaps of what can be shared publicly with their thoughts and opinions. I acknowledge that there is no ideal solution here. Nonetheless, I hope to clarify some things to the extent possible under the circumstances. We have also responded to some of these questions on Meta earlier here.
The Board considers a wide range of criteria in evaluating eligible
candidates and future leaders. That is why the process includes many inputs, such as background checks, media checks, reference checks, and interviews with the candidates, as we have done in past years. Consistent with the values of our movement, the board has always been committed to free expression, diverse viewpoints, and a range of perspectives, backgrounds and experiences. The Board has always had members – historic and current – who have been critics of the Foundation and of the Board itself. This is the nature of our governance system, and this will not change.
Nat's original message outlined the reasons for how candidates were
assessed, including more subjective criteria like a candidate's judgment, discernment, discretion, and ability to engage in the duties and requirements of being a Trustee, some of which can be complex and difficult to measure. These conversations covered topics like conflicts of interest, fiduciary obligations of Trustees, a track record of commitment to Wikimedia's core principles and values (e.g., upholding NPOV, managing COIs, etc.), as well as a candidate's understanding of the Board's Code of Conduct and other governance policies, and what these policies require of Trustees.
Our decisions were based entirely on these factors, and no others.
We have made a difficult decision as a collective of Trustees, each of
us with our own views, and after an active debate, we reached a unanimous agreement. We understand that this has raised questions and concerns that are being taken seriously as we all consider future election reforms to improve this process for all stakeholders, including for the Board itself.
We offer a public apology to any candidate who has felt singled out, as
this was never anyone's intent. It is an act of commitment and courage to run for the Board of Trustees – our goal is always to encourage active Wikimedians to grow in their leadership, whether that is service on the Board or in other ways in our movement.
I hope you will vote in the election and continue to share your
questions on Meta. We can collectively learn from this process to continue strengthening our movement in an era when we are needed more than ever in the world.
Lorenzo
Il giorno gio, 09/10/2025 alle 10.18 +0100, Victoria Doronina ha scritto:
Lorenzo, in your rush, you re-quoted the misleading allegations, so that's hardly an apology that makes sense no matter how much good faith you have. Your background on free speech is impeccable, apart from this current non-democratic fiasco, so it's surprising you are shouldering any of it.
With "I hope you will vote in the election", you're overlooking the point of the boycott, the right of the community to be free to elect its choice of trustees to represent them. As for the reasoning you have given, this totally ignores that if you want to apply a kind of vague perception test to reject candidates, you (the WMF Board) could and should have done that before the Affiliates invested time in voting to whittle the candidates to a definitive final best 6. Re-start the election process out of respect for the judgement of the Wikimedia community you were elected to represent, or resign over this incompetent chaotic election that will permanently tarnish any "not queer advocate", "not woman" that happens to get elected because the community of voters can only vote for the 4 men you appointed for seats that by resolution not appointed, but now effectively are.
I suggest that these remaining candidates, Bobby Shabangu, James Alexander, Michał Buczyński and Wojciech Pędzich withdraw from the election based on their own public stated ethical values before any are handed a board seat from a corrupted election.
== Previous position on free speech ==
In line with my earlier checking of trustee values, here's Lorenzo Losa during the election to Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 4 years ago: "I live in a reasonably democratic country, but even here, even in the US and in the EU, laws that would restrict users' freedom are proposed every day. Protecting users' rights matters for everyone, everywhere."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidat... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hello,
Victoria's email and analysis supposedly was written *"as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information"* https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... yet her statement included analysis justifying why she a Board member, justified Lane’s removal from the Board candidate shortlist - which was analysis not based on public information. If part of the reason that Rasberry was removed was for fear he would be sharing the Board's private discussions and sensitive information, she seems to have already violated that guideline, or at least, I would hope the individual public engagement of Board members on this topic is cause for Board consideration about its lack of a unified approach.
Also, for those who need a timeline of events, I have compiled one here and also have included a list of open questions these controversies raise that I hope the current Board and Board candidates will publicly address: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Learning_from_events_and_reactions_surroundi...
Dorothy
On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 4:37 PM Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
I always took Victoria's perspective as her own, but I do find it concerning. It's the only one we have so of course people are going to read into it. You can't really have a volunteer "take" on something you're voting on as a board member If that's the perspective at least one person has, it's natural to wonder if other people voting on the same perceptions.
It'd be different if we had the knowledge of what other board members perspectives were but we don't. Silence is often take as agreement, especially when no other board members are publically disagreeing with the given interpretation. We don't even have confirmation on whether or not other people agreed with her, but an "unanimous" decision has implications.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2025, 2:30 p.m. L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 18:41, Lorenzo llosa@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all,
I want to clarify some details following Victoria's email as I know it
has caused confusion. This email was not sent in any official capacity - it was Victoria's personal opinion, as she noted there, it was sent "as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information". This email should not be seen as an analysis of the Board's decisions on the candidates for this year's elections process.
I understand that for some, emotions are at an all time high, and
people will want to fill in the gaps of what can be shared publicly with their thoughts and opinions. I acknowledge that there is no ideal solution here. Nonetheless, I hope to clarify some things to the extent possible under the circumstances. We have also responded to some of these questions on Meta earlier here.
The Board considers a wide range of criteria in evaluating eligible
candidates and future leaders. That is why the process includes many inputs, such as background checks, media checks, reference checks, and interviews with the candidates, as we have done in past years. Consistent with the values of our movement, the board has always been committed to free expression, diverse viewpoints, and a range of perspectives, backgrounds and experiences. The Board has always had members – historic and current – who have been critics of the Foundation and of the Board itself. This is the nature of our governance system, and this will not change.
Nat's original message outlined the reasons for how candidates were
assessed, including more subjective criteria like a candidate's judgment, discernment, discretion, and ability to engage in the duties and requirements of being a Trustee, some of which can be complex and difficult to measure. These conversations covered topics like conflicts of interest, fiduciary obligations of Trustees, a track record of commitment to Wikimedia's core principles and values (e.g., upholding NPOV, managing COIs, etc.), as well as a candidate's understanding of the Board's Code of Conduct and other governance policies, and what these policies require of Trustees.
Our decisions were based entirely on these factors, and no others.
We have made a difficult decision as a collective of Trustees, each of
us with our own views, and after an active debate, we reached a unanimous agreement. We understand that this has raised questions and concerns that are being taken seriously as we all consider future election reforms to improve this process for all stakeholders, including for the Board itself.
We offer a public apology to any candidate who has felt singled out, as
this was never anyone's intent. It is an act of commitment and courage to run for the Board of Trustees – our goal is always to encourage active Wikimedians to grow in their leadership, whether that is service on the Board or in other ways in our movement.
I hope you will vote in the election and continue to share your
questions on Meta. We can collectively learn from this process to continue strengthening our movement in an era when we are needed more than ever in the world.
Lorenzo
Il giorno gio, 09/10/2025 alle 10.18 +0100, Victoria Doronina ha
scritto:
Lorenzo, in your rush, you re-quoted the misleading allegations, so that's hardly an apology that makes sense no matter how much good faith you have. Your background on free speech is impeccable, apart from this current non-democratic fiasco, so it's surprising you are shouldering any of it.
With "I hope you will vote in the election", you're overlooking the point of the boycott, the right of the community to be free to elect its choice of trustees to represent them. As for the reasoning you have given, this totally ignores that if you want to apply a kind of vague perception test to reject candidates, you (the WMF Board) could and should have done that before the Affiliates invested time in voting to whittle the candidates to a definitive final best 6. Re-start the election process out of respect for the judgement of the Wikimedia community you were elected to represent, or resign over this incompetent chaotic election that will permanently tarnish any "not queer advocate", "not woman" that happens to get elected because the community of voters can only vote for the 4 men you appointed for seats that by resolution not appointed, but now effectively are.
I suggest that these remaining candidates, Bobby Shabangu, James Alexander, Michał Buczyński and Wojciech Pędzich withdraw from the election based on their own public stated ethical values before any are handed a board seat from a corrupted election.
== Previous position on free speech ==
In line with my earlier checking of trustee values, here's Lorenzo Losa during the election to Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 4 years ago: "I live in a reasonably democratic country, but even here, even in the US and in the EU, laws that would restrict users' freedom are proposed every day. Protecting users' rights matters for everyone, everywhere."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidat... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I'll ask in all of this to consider the impact it is having on the four candidates who are themselves good people worthy of being on the board.
Regardless of the issues we will still get good people representing our community on the Board. Demanding that others who have met the conditions stand down is unfair and unwarranted.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 at 04:37, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
I always took Victoria's perspective as her own, but I do find it concerning. It's the only one we have so of course people are going to read into it. You can't really have a volunteer "take" on something you're voting on as a board member If that's the perspective at least one person has, it's natural to wonder if other people voting on the same perceptions.
It'd be different if we had the knowledge of what other board members perspectives were but we don't. Silence is often take as agreement, especially when no other board members are publically disagreeing with the given interpretation. We don't even have confirmation on whether or not other people agreed with her, but an "unanimous" decision has implications.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2025, 2:30 p.m. L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 18:41, Lorenzo llosa@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all,
I want to clarify some details following Victoria's email as I know it
has caused confusion. This email was not sent in any official capacity - it was Victoria's personal opinion, as she noted there, it was sent "as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information". This email should not be seen as an analysis of the Board's decisions on the candidates for this year's elections process.
I understand that for some, emotions are at an all time high, and
people will want to fill in the gaps of what can be shared publicly with their thoughts and opinions. I acknowledge that there is no ideal solution here. Nonetheless, I hope to clarify some things to the extent possible under the circumstances. We have also responded to some of these questions on Meta earlier here.
The Board considers a wide range of criteria in evaluating eligible
candidates and future leaders. That is why the process includes many inputs, such as background checks, media checks, reference checks, and interviews with the candidates, as we have done in past years. Consistent with the values of our movement, the board has always been committed to free expression, diverse viewpoints, and a range of perspectives, backgrounds and experiences. The Board has always had members – historic and current – who have been critics of the Foundation and of the Board itself. This is the nature of our governance system, and this will not change.
Nat's original message outlined the reasons for how candidates were
assessed, including more subjective criteria like a candidate's judgment, discernment, discretion, and ability to engage in the duties and requirements of being a Trustee, some of which can be complex and difficult to measure. These conversations covered topics like conflicts of interest, fiduciary obligations of Trustees, a track record of commitment to Wikimedia's core principles and values (e.g., upholding NPOV, managing COIs, etc.), as well as a candidate's understanding of the Board's Code of Conduct and other governance policies, and what these policies require of Trustees.
Our decisions were based entirely on these factors, and no others.
We have made a difficult decision as a collective of Trustees, each of
us with our own views, and after an active debate, we reached a unanimous agreement. We understand that this has raised questions and concerns that are being taken seriously as we all consider future election reforms to improve this process for all stakeholders, including for the Board itself.
We offer a public apology to any candidate who has felt singled out, as
this was never anyone's intent. It is an act of commitment and courage to run for the Board of Trustees – our goal is always to encourage active Wikimedians to grow in their leadership, whether that is service on the Board or in other ways in our movement.
I hope you will vote in the election and continue to share your
questions on Meta. We can collectively learn from this process to continue strengthening our movement in an era when we are needed more than ever in the world.
Lorenzo
Il giorno gio, 09/10/2025 alle 10.18 +0100, Victoria Doronina ha
scritto:
Lorenzo, in your rush, you re-quoted the misleading allegations, so that's hardly an apology that makes sense no matter how much good faith you have. Your background on free speech is impeccable, apart from this current non-democratic fiasco, so it's surprising you are shouldering any of it.
With "I hope you will vote in the election", you're overlooking the point of the boycott, the right of the community to be free to elect its choice of trustees to represent them. As for the reasoning you have given, this totally ignores that if you want to apply a kind of vague perception test to reject candidates, you (the WMF Board) could and should have done that before the Affiliates invested time in voting to whittle the candidates to a definitive final best 6. Re-start the election process out of respect for the judgement of the Wikimedia community you were elected to represent, or resign over this incompetent chaotic election that will permanently tarnish any "not queer advocate", "not woman" that happens to get elected because the community of voters can only vote for the 4 men you appointed for seats that by resolution not appointed, but now effectively are.
I suggest that these remaining candidates, Bobby Shabangu, James Alexander, Michał Buczyński and Wojciech Pędzich withdraw from the election based on their own public stated ethical values before any are handed a board seat from a corrupted election.
== Previous position on free speech ==
In line with my earlier checking of trustee values, here's Lorenzo Losa during the election to Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 4 years ago: "I live in a reasonably democratic country, but even here, even in the US and in the EU, laws that would restrict users' freedom are proposed every day. Protecting users' rights matters for everyone, everywhere."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidat... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Saturday, October 11, 2025, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of the issues we will still get good people representing our community on the Board. Demanding that others who have met the conditions stand down is unfair and unwarranted.
Please do not generalize your opinion as a common one. For example some of us from CEE region feel that over-representation of CEE on Board and among candidates in past and this election is outside of good faith for diversity. Kopetzky wrote about it long ago, while others were vocal in several discussion rounds and group communication.
Best Z.
I wasn't commenting on where any person lives. I was saying that those candidates which can be voted for are good capable people, that in this the assumption that they aren't is implied by what has not been said. We can only vote for that put themselves forward and who passed scrutiny. The process is questionable and should be reviewed but not mid process, and calling on them to stepson and corrupt the process further while leaving us with less representation
Boodarwun Gnangarra 'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardon nlangan Nyungar koortabodjar'
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025, 10:30 am Željko Blaće, zblace@mi2.hr wrote:
On Saturday, October 11, 2025, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of the issues we will still get good people representing our community on the Board. Demanding that others who have met the conditions stand down is unfair and unwarranted.
Please do not generalize your opinion as a common one. For example some of us from CEE region feel that over-representation of CEE on Board and among candidates in past and this election is outside of good faith for diversity. Kopetzky wrote about it long ago, while others were vocal in several discussion rounds and group communication.
Best Z.
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 19:40, Lorenzo llosa@wikimedia.org wrote:
I want to clarify some details following Victoria's email as I know it has caused confusion. This email was not sent in any official capacity - it was Victoria's personal opinion, as she noted there, it was sent "as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information".
Considering the above, I'm confused by the fact that you are writing from a wikimedia.org email address, but signing only with your first name (and with no disclaimer); are you speaking personally, or in your official capacity as a board member?
This email should not be seen as an analysis of the Board's decisions on the candidates for this year's elections process.
Is a "Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information"—any Wikimedian—not entitled to offer an analysis of the Board's decisions?
I understand that for some, emotions are at an all time high, and people will want to fill in the gaps of what can be shared publicly with their thoughts and opinions
And some have very genuine concerns which are not driven by emotion, and which are based on the available facts and evidence. Please respect them as such.
I hope you will vote in the election
I have said for some years that we should stop pretending that this is an election.
I am saddened to see the board taking greater authority over community elections and thus decreasing democracy within our movement, though its occurrence is not entirely surprising. A number of members of the board and foundation have for some time wanted greater say over community elected trustees. Suggestions have included being able to state criteria or skills they feel the board needs and making only those they feel have those skills eligible to run. However part of elections is being able to support folks who have skills you as the electorate feel those in authority are currently lacking. This is especially important in times of crises and reduces the risk of one of our key movement organizations, the WMF, being co-opted by those who may not be movement aligned.
We as the communities are far more powerful than we often give ourselves credit. While technically when on the board one needs to do what is in the best interest of the WMF, I believe the best interest of our communities and the WMF are aligned and inseparable. We are all pursuing the same mission. With respect to prior community efforts, the protests against SOPA and PIPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA played a role in their being shelved. Our efforts around EU copyright law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market#Non-governmental_organisations in part led to a full discussion by the European Parliament. Community feedback regarding foundation staff bypassing ARBCOM in its sanctioning of Fram got the board to intervene in support of community self governance.
Yes technically we do not have elections, with all board members in the end being appointed by the board itself. But we have had an election process that the board has historically respected. As a parallel, as a Canadian we do not technically have a full democracy as our Monarch has the ability to disallow a bill passed by parliament either directly or via the Governor General. They; however, have never exercised this power since our country was formed in 1867. And if they did I imagine significant controversy would result.
As a trustee who was partly removed 10 years ago for pushing for greater transparency around the proposed Knowledge Engine (search engine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine_(search_engine) it concerns me to see a candidate within the election being removed by the board in part for speaking up for transparency. I believe we need an independent group of elected community members, who have signed non-disclosure agreements, and are provided details by the WMF legal team and trust and safety, to oversee who is and is not eligible to stand for election. We can have community elections if we demand them.
Sincerely
James Heilman
MD, CCFP(EM), Wikipedian
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 9:07 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 19:40, Lorenzo llosa@wikimedia.org wrote:
I want to clarify some details following Victoria's email as I know it
has caused confusion. This email was not sent in any official capacity - it was Victoria's personal opinion, as she noted there, it was sent "as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information".
Considering the above, I'm confused by the fact that you are writing from a wikimedia.org email address, but signing only with your first name (and with no disclaimer); are you speaking personally, or in your official capacity as a board member?
This email should not be seen as an analysis of the Board's decisions on
the candidates for this year's elections process.
Is a "Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information"—any Wikimedian—not entitled to offer an analysis of the Board's decisions?
I understand that for some, emotions are at an all time high, and people
will want to fill in the gaps of what can be shared publicly with their thoughts and opinions
And some have very genuine concerns which are not driven by emotion, and which are based on the available facts and evidence. Please respect them as such.
I hope you will vote in the election
I have said for some years that we should stop pretending that this is an election.
-- Andy Mabbett User:Pigsonthewing https://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
James,
Thank you for this response, and it is good to see your signature on Hanna's letter.
I am curious -- it sounds like you are substantially on board with what Hannah wrote, and do not like seeing the exclusion of at least one of the candidates. However, the board chair's initial message stated that the exclusion of candidates was agreed "unanimously" by the board.
Can you speak to this? Did you initially agree, and then change your mind? Was the chair's characterization inaccurate? Is there some other, less apparent circumstance?
I have great admiration for anyone, on either/any "side" of this, who has the time and energy to invest in an ongoing, substantive discussion about how things can be improved in the future. That isn't me at the moment, but I do believe there is much good that could be done with that approach.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 8:47 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I am saddened to see the board taking greater authority over community elections and thus decreasing democracy within our movement, though its occurrence is not entirely surprising. A number of members of the board and foundation have for some time wanted greater say over community elected trustees. Suggestions have included being able to state criteria or skills they feel the board needs and making only those they feel have those skills eligible to run. However part of elections is being able to support folks who have skills you as the electorate feel those in authority are currently lacking. This is especially important in times of crises and reduces the risk of one of our key movement organizations, the WMF, being co-opted by those who may not be movement aligned.
We as the communities are far more powerful than we often give ourselves credit. While technically when on the board one needs to do what is in the best interest of the WMF, I believe the best interest of our communities and the WMF are aligned and inseparable. We are all pursuing the same mission. With respect to prior community efforts, the protests against SOPA and PIPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA played a role in their being shelved. Our efforts around EU copyright law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market#Non-governmental_organisations in part led to a full discussion by the European Parliament. Community feedback regarding foundation staff bypassing ARBCOM in its sanctioning of Fram got the board to intervene in support of community self governance.
Yes technically we do not have elections, with all board members in the end being appointed by the board itself. But we have had an election process that the board has historically respected. As a parallel, as a Canadian we do not technically have a full democracy as our Monarch has the ability to disallow a bill passed by parliament either directly or via the Governor General. They; however, have never exercised this power since our country was formed in 1867. And if they did I imagine significant controversy would result.
As a trustee who was partly removed 10 years ago for pushing for greater transparency around the proposed Knowledge Engine (search engine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine_(search_engine) it concerns me to see a candidate within the election being removed by the board in part for speaking up for transparency. I believe we need an independent group of elected community members, who have signed non-disclosure agreements, and are provided details by the WMF legal team and trust and safety, to oversee who is and is not eligible to stand for election. We can have community elections if we demand them.
Sincerely
James Heilman
MD, CCFP(EM), Wikipedian
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 9:07 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 19:40, Lorenzo llosa@wikimedia.org wrote:
I want to clarify some details following Victoria's email as I know it
has caused confusion. This email was not sent in any official capacity - it was Victoria's personal opinion, as she noted there, it was sent "as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information".
Considering the above, I'm confused by the fact that you are writing from a wikimedia.org email address, but signing only with your first name (and with no disclaimer); are you speaking personally, or in your official capacity as a board member?
This email should not be seen as an analysis of the Board's decisions
on the candidates for this year's elections process.
Is a "Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information"—any Wikimedian—not entitled to offer an analysis of the Board's decisions?
I understand that for some, emotions are at an all time high, and
people will want to fill in the gaps of what can be shared publicly with their thoughts and opinions
And some have very genuine concerns which are not driven by emotion, and which are based on the available facts and evidence. Please respect them as such.
I hope you will vote in the election
I have said for some years that we should stop pretending that this is an election.
-- Andy Mabbett User:Pigsonthewing https://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
My mistake, I see that James Heilman's term on the Board of Trustees has ended. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Board_of_Trustees
Still, a valuable addition from a former Trustee.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 5:45 PM Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
James,
Thank you for this response, and it is good to see your signature on Hanna's letter.
I am curious -- it sounds like you are substantially on board with what Hannah wrote, and do not like seeing the exclusion of at least one of the candidates. However, the board chair's initial message stated that the exclusion of candidates was agreed "unanimously" by the board.
Can you speak to this? Did you initially agree, and then change your mind? Was the chair's characterization inaccurate? Is there some other, less apparent circumstance?
I have great admiration for anyone, on either/any "side" of this, who has the time and energy to invest in an ongoing, substantive discussion about how things can be improved in the future. That isn't me at the moment, but I do believe there is much good that could be done with that approach.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 8:47 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I am saddened to see the board taking greater authority over community elections and thus decreasing democracy within our movement, though its occurrence is not entirely surprising. A number of members of the board and foundation have for some time wanted greater say over community elected trustees. Suggestions have included being able to state criteria or skills they feel the board needs and making only those they feel have those skills eligible to run. However part of elections is being able to support folks who have skills you as the electorate feel those in authority are currently lacking. This is especially important in times of crises and reduces the risk of one of our key movement organizations, the WMF, being co-opted by those who may not be movement aligned.
We as the communities are far more powerful than we often give ourselves credit. While technically when on the board one needs to do what is in the best interest of the WMF, I believe the best interest of our communities and the WMF are aligned and inseparable. We are all pursuing the same mission. With respect to prior community efforts, the protests against SOPA and PIPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA played a role in their being shelved. Our efforts around EU copyright law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market#Non-governmental_organisations in part led to a full discussion by the European Parliament. Community feedback regarding foundation staff bypassing ARBCOM in its sanctioning of Fram got the board to intervene in support of community self governance.
Yes technically we do not have elections, with all board members in the end being appointed by the board itself. But we have had an election process that the board has historically respected. As a parallel, as a Canadian we do not technically have a full democracy as our Monarch has the ability to disallow a bill passed by parliament either directly or via the Governor General. They; however, have never exercised this power since our country was formed in 1867. And if they did I imagine significant controversy would result.
As a trustee who was partly removed 10 years ago for pushing for greater transparency around the proposed Knowledge Engine (search engine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine_(search_engine) it concerns me to see a candidate within the election being removed by the board in part for speaking up for transparency. I believe we need an independent group of elected community members, who have signed non-disclosure agreements, and are provided details by the WMF legal team and trust and safety, to oversee who is and is not eligible to stand for election. We can have community elections if we demand them.
Sincerely
James Heilman
MD, CCFP(EM), Wikipedian
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 9:07 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 19:40, Lorenzo llosa@wikimedia.org wrote:
I want to clarify some details following Victoria's email as I know it
has caused confusion. This email was not sent in any official capacity - it was Victoria's personal opinion, as she noted there, it was sent "as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information".
Considering the above, I'm confused by the fact that you are writing from a wikimedia.org email address, but signing only with your first name (and with no disclaimer); are you speaking personally, or in your official capacity as a board member?
This email should not be seen as an analysis of the Board's decisions
on the candidates for this year's elections process.
Is a "Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information"—any Wikimedian—not entitled to offer an analysis of the Board's decisions?
I understand that for some, emotions are at an all time high, and
people will want to fill in the gaps of what can be shared publicly with their thoughts and opinions
And some have very genuine concerns which are not driven by emotion, and which are based on the available facts and evidence. Please respect them as such.
I hope you will vote in the election
I have said for some years that we should stop pretending that this is an election.
-- Andy Mabbett User:Pigsonthewing https://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hey Pete
Am no longer on the WMF board. The statement by the board was the "Board has unanimously decided that four candidates will be on the ballot". https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob...
I do not take this as implying that there was unanimous support to remove either of the two candidates. I imagine there would have been individual votes for each candidate, with greater than 50% support to remove two of them. Followed by a final vote for the remaining slate of candidates.
James
On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 6:46 PM Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
James,
Thank you for this response, and it is good to see your signature on Hanna's letter.
I am curious -- it sounds like you are substantially on board with what Hannah wrote, and do not like seeing the exclusion of at least one of the candidates. However, the board chair's initial message stated that the exclusion of candidates was agreed "unanimously" by the board.
Can you speak to this? Did you initially agree, and then change your mind? Was the chair's characterization inaccurate? Is there some other, less apparent circumstance?
I have great admiration for anyone, on either/any "side" of this, who has the time and energy to invest in an ongoing, substantive discussion about how things can be improved in the future. That isn't me at the moment, but I do believe there is much good that could be done with that approach.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 8:47 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I am saddened to see the board taking greater authority over community elections and thus decreasing democracy within our movement, though its occurrence is not entirely surprising. A number of members of the board and foundation have for some time wanted greater say over community elected trustees. Suggestions have included being able to state criteria or skills they feel the board needs and making only those they feel have those skills eligible to run. However part of elections is being able to support folks who have skills you as the electorate feel those in authority are currently lacking. This is especially important in times of crises and reduces the risk of one of our key movement organizations, the WMF, being co-opted by those who may not be movement aligned.
We as the communities are far more powerful than we often give ourselves credit. While technically when on the board one needs to do what is in the best interest of the WMF, I believe the best interest of our communities and the WMF are aligned and inseparable. We are all pursuing the same mission. With respect to prior community efforts, the protests against SOPA and PIPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA played a role in their being shelved. Our efforts around EU copyright law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market#Non-governmental_organisations in part led to a full discussion by the European Parliament. Community feedback regarding foundation staff bypassing ARBCOM in its sanctioning of Fram got the board to intervene in support of community self governance.
Yes technically we do not have elections, with all board members in the end being appointed by the board itself. But we have had an election process that the board has historically respected. As a parallel, as a Canadian we do not technically have a full democracy as our Monarch has the ability to disallow a bill passed by parliament either directly or via the Governor General. They; however, have never exercised this power since our country was formed in 1867. And if they did I imagine significant controversy would result.
As a trustee who was partly removed 10 years ago for pushing for greater transparency around the proposed Knowledge Engine (search engine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine_(search_engine) it concerns me to see a candidate within the election being removed by the board in part for speaking up for transparency. I believe we need an independent group of elected community members, who have signed non-disclosure agreements, and are provided details by the WMF legal team and trust and safety, to oversee who is and is not eligible to stand for election. We can have community elections if we demand them.
Sincerely
James Heilman
MD, CCFP(EM), Wikipedian
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 9:07 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 19:40, Lorenzo llosa@wikimedia.org wrote:
I want to clarify some details following Victoria's email as I know it
has caused confusion. This email was not sent in any official capacity - it was Victoria's personal opinion, as she noted there, it was sent "as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information".
Considering the above, I'm confused by the fact that you are writing from a wikimedia.org email address, but signing only with your first name (and with no disclaimer); are you speaking personally, or in your official capacity as a board member?
This email should not be seen as an analysis of the Board's decisions
on the candidates for this year's elections process.
Is a "Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information"—any Wikimedian—not entitled to offer an analysis of the Board's decisions?
I understand that for some, emotions are at an all time high, and
people will want to fill in the gaps of what can be shared publicly with their thoughts and opinions
And some have very genuine concerns which are not driven by emotion, and which are based on the available facts and evidence. Please respect them as such.
I hope you will vote in the election
I have said for some years that we should stop pretending that this is an election.
-- Andy Mabbett User:Pigsonthewing https://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi, just to share that was published a Statement of Basque Wikimedians User Group regarding the 2025 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Election: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... Best,
El mar, 14 oct 2025 a las 10:54, James Heilman (jmh649@gmail.com) escribió:
Hey Pete
Am no longer on the WMF board. The statement by the board was the "Board has unanimously decided that four candidates will be on the ballot". https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob...
I do not take this as implying that there was unanimous support to remove either of the two candidates. I imagine there would have been individual votes for each candidate, with greater than 50% support to remove two of them. Followed by a final vote for the remaining slate of candidates.
James
On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 6:46 PM Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
James,
Thank you for this response, and it is good to see your signature on Hanna's letter.
I am curious -- it sounds like you are substantially on board with what Hannah wrote, and do not like seeing the exclusion of at least one of the candidates. However, the board chair's initial message stated that the exclusion of candidates was agreed "unanimously" by the board.
Can you speak to this? Did you initially agree, and then change your mind? Was the chair's characterization inaccurate? Is there some other, less apparent circumstance?
I have great admiration for anyone, on either/any "side" of this, who has the time and energy to invest in an ongoing, substantive discussion about how things can be improved in the future. That isn't me at the moment, but I do believe there is much good that could be done with that approach.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 8:47 PM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I am saddened to see the board taking greater authority over community elections and thus decreasing democracy within our movement, though its occurrence is not entirely surprising. A number of members of the board and foundation have for some time wanted greater say over community elected trustees. Suggestions have included being able to state criteria or skills they feel the board needs and making only those they feel have those skills eligible to run. However part of elections is being able to support folks who have skills you as the electorate feel those in authority are currently lacking. This is especially important in times of crises and reduces the risk of one of our key movement organizations, the WMF, being co-opted by those who may not be movement aligned.
We as the communities are far more powerful than we often give ourselves credit. While technically when on the board one needs to do what is in the best interest of the WMF, I believe the best interest of our communities and the WMF are aligned and inseparable. We are all pursuing the same mission. With respect to prior community efforts, the protests against SOPA and PIPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA played a role in their being shelved. Our efforts around EU copyright law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market#Non-governmental_organisations in part led to a full discussion by the European Parliament. Community feedback regarding foundation staff bypassing ARBCOM in its sanctioning of Fram got the board to intervene in support of community self governance.
Yes technically we do not have elections, with all board members in the end being appointed by the board itself. But we have had an election process that the board has historically respected. As a parallel, as a Canadian we do not technically have a full democracy as our Monarch has the ability to disallow a bill passed by parliament either directly or via the Governor General. They; however, have never exercised this power since our country was formed in 1867. And if they did I imagine significant controversy would result.
As a trustee who was partly removed 10 years ago for pushing for greater transparency around the proposed Knowledge Engine (search engine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine_(search_engine) it concerns me to see a candidate within the election being removed by the board in part for speaking up for transparency. I believe we need an independent group of elected community members, who have signed non-disclosure agreements, and are provided details by the WMF legal team and trust and safety, to oversee who is and is not eligible to stand for election. We can have community elections if we demand them.
Sincerely
James Heilman
MD, CCFP(EM), Wikipedian
On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 9:07 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 19:40, Lorenzo llosa@wikimedia.org wrote:
I want to clarify some details following Victoria's email as I know
it has caused confusion. This email was not sent in any official capacity - it was Victoria's personal opinion, as she noted there, it was sent "as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information".
Considering the above, I'm confused by the fact that you are writing from a wikimedia.org email address, but signing only with your first name (and with no disclaimer); are you speaking personally, or in your official capacity as a board member?
This email should not be seen as an analysis of the Board's decisions
on the candidates for this year's elections process.
Is a "Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information"—any Wikimedian—not entitled to offer an analysis of the Board's decisions?
I understand that for some, emotions are at an all time high, and
people will want to fill in the gaps of what can be shared publicly with their thoughts and opinions
And some have very genuine concerns which are not driven by emotion, and which are based on the available facts and evidence. Please respect them as such.
I hope you will vote in the election
I have said for some years that we should stop pretending that this is an election.
-- Andy Mabbett User:Pigsonthewing https://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear James,
I don't think the Fram ban has anything to do with this TBH. I understand that the board is currently under pressure with the two letters sent by the Congress, and that some people experience fear to stand for the values of inclusivity the movement professed in our strategic orientation. The fact remains that a woman has experienced a smear campaign for expressing concerns about Palestine that were badly translated from arabic and then used against her. By chosing to expell her as a candidate and make her responsible for views expressed when she was not even a candidate, the board takes a position that can be qualified as non neutral. People either from Palestine or Israel should not be stopped from becoming candidates.
Wikipedia is not a democracy either, and many people have been harassed and continue to be without being able to get justice. As for democracy, the wish for democracy goes two ways : some people representing gender gap projects have long been pointing the lack of respect for underrepresented communities and it's not like we are heading towards an improvement now. The community is not transparent either : pseudos are not transparent, and nobody in our movement is criticizing this. So democracy and transparency are arguments that need to be examined in context.
The foundation is ... a foundation, and is not a democracy either (and this would not change anywhere else in the world). It has nevertheless been improving IMO. The balance between the power of communities and the power of the foundation seems to me to achieve a certain balance of power, which can be called an imperfect dystopian status, certainly not a democracy.
I don't think we should be opposing "the community" to "the foundation" here. There are so many communities in our movement, that there is no such thing as "the community". There are many different opinions, and the positive thing is for them to be able to express themselves within the boundaries of respect.
I understand (even if I dont quite agree) how the board could take these decisions, but in my opinion this is more a blow to projects wishing for more inclusivity than to transparency and democracy. It sends an ambiguous message : you shall not express views that are overtly" woke", so to speak, or you can be left alone to deal with smear campaigns as we wish to protect our image. I don't think it is an encouraging view to pursue.
I can see why the board would fear for their image and want more discreet candidates, but I think strong experienced candiates are just what we strategically need now to overcome hurdles, candidates like Ravan and Lane.
To finish, I will quote a famous francophone Haitian writer, Marie Vieux-Chauvet " Fear is a vice that takes root once it is cultivated. It takes time to recover from it". Now is the moment to stand for free knowledge, to express our concern and respect to each other, as history of the past shows that progressive movements have always been brought down by internal divisions, orchestrated mostly by smear campaigns.....
With wikilove to the board, to the communities and to you James !
Nattes à chat
Le 14.10.2025 à 18:53, James Heilman a écrit :
Hey Pete
Am no longer on the WMF board. The statement by the board was the "Board has unanimously decided that four candidates will be on the ballot". https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob...
I do not take this as implying that there was unanimous support to remove either of the two candidates. I imagine there would have been individual votes for each candidate, with greater than 50% support to remove two of them. Followed by a final vote for the remaining slate of candidates.
James
On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 6:46 PM Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
James, Thank you for this response, and it is good to see your signature on Hanna's letter. I am curious -- it sounds like you are substantially on board with what Hannah wrote, and do not like seeing the exclusion of at least one of the candidates. However, the board chair's initial message stated that the exclusion of candidates was agreed "unanimously" by the board. Can you speak to this? Did you initially agree, and then change your mind? Was the chair's characterization inaccurate? Is there some other, less apparent circumstance? I have great admiration for anyone, on either/any "side" of this, who has the time and energy to invest in an ongoing, substantive discussion about how things can be improved in the future. That isn't me at the moment, but I do believe there is much good that could be done with that approach. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 8:47 PM James Heilman <jmh649@gmail.com> wrote: I am saddened to see the board taking greater authority over community elections and thus decreasing democracy within our movement, though its occurrence is not entirely surprising. A number of members of the board and foundation have for some time wanted greater say over community elected trustees. Suggestions have included being able to state criteria or skills they feel the board needs and making only those they feel have those skills eligible to run. However part of elections is being able to support folks who have skills you as the electorate feel those in authority are currently lacking. This is especially important in times of crises and reduces the risk of one of our key movement organizations, the WMF, being co-opted by those who may not be movement aligned. We as the communities are far more powerful than we often give ourselves credit. While technically when on the board one needs to do what is in the best interest of the WMF, I believe the best interest of our communities and the WMF are aligned and inseparable. We are all pursuing the same mission. With respect to prior community efforts, the protests against SOPA and PIPA <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA>played a role in their being shelved. Our efforts around EU copyright law <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market#Non-governmental_organisations>in part led to a full discussion by the European Parliament. Community feedback regarding foundation staff bypassing ARBCOM in its sanctioning of Fram got the board to intervene in support of community self governance. Yes technically we do not have elections, with all board members in the end being appointed by the board itself. But we have had an election process that the board has historically respected. As a parallel, as a Canadian we do not technically have a full democracy as our Monarch has the ability to disallow a bill passed by parliament either directly or via the Governor General. They; however, have never exercised this power since our country was formed in 1867. And if they did I imagine significant controversy would result. As a trustee who was partly removed 10 years ago for pushing for greater transparency around the proposed Knowledge Engine (search engine) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Engine_(search_engine)>it concerns me to see a candidate within the election being removed by the board in part for speaking up for transparency. I believe we need an independent group of elected community members, who have signed non-disclosure agreements, and are provided details by the WMF legal team and trust and safety, to oversee who is and is not eligible to stand for election. We can have community elections if we demand them. Sincerely James Heilman MD, CCFP(EM), Wikipedian On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 9:07 AM Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 19:40, Lorenzo <llosa@wikimedia.org> wrote: > I want to clarify some details following Victoria's email as I know it has caused confusion. This email was not sent in any official capacity - it was Victoria's personal opinion, as she noted there, it was sent "as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information". Considering the above, I'm confused by the fact that you are writing from a wikimedia.org <http://wikimedia.org> email address, but signing only with your first name (and with no disclaimer); are you speaking personally, or in your official capacity as a board member? > This email should not be seen as an analysis of the Board's decisions on the candidates for this year's elections process. Is a "Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information"—any Wikimedian—not entitled to offer an analysis of the Board's decisions? > I understand that for some, emotions are at an all time high, and people will want to fill in the gaps of what can be shared publicly with their thoughts and opinions And some have very genuine concerns which are not driven by emotion, and which are based on the available facts and evidence. Please respect them as such. > I hope you will vote in the election I have said for some years that we should stop pretending that this is an election. -- Andy Mabbett User:Pigsonthewing https://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NLUOHKHXDRTKQA5MPUOOCYV3IB5IBV6U/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OV4YVM5G26LP6O6OMFD6UXYEDYCWO2I5/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/7SBBQSJ6HVALAFHKHQHRN3PDS5CFXOEW/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear James,
I don't think the Fram ban has anything to do with this, TBH. I understand that the board is currently under pressure with the two letters sent by the Congress and that some people experience fear to stand for the values of inclusivity the movement professed in our strategic orientation. The fact remains that a woman has experienced a smear campaign for expressing concerns about Palestine that were badly translated from Arabic and then used against her. By choosing to refuse her as a candidate and make her responsible for views expressed when she was not even a candidate, the board takes a position that can be qualified as non-neutral. People either from Palestine or Israel should not be stopped from becoming candidates.
Wikipedia is not a democracy either, and many people have been harassed and continue to be without being able to get justice. As for democracy, the wish for democracy goes two ways: some people representing gender gap projects have long been pointing out the lack of respect for underrepresented communities, and it's not like we are heading towards an improvement now. The community is not transparent either: pseudos are not transparent, and nobody in our movement is criticizing this. So democracy and transparency are arguments that need to be examined in context.
The foundation is ... a foundation and is not a democracy either (and this would not change anywhere else in the world). It has nevertheless been improving, IMO. The balance between the power of communities and the power of the foundation seems to me to achieve a certain balance of power, which can be called an imperfect dystopian status, certainly not a democracy.
I don't think we should be opposing "the community" to "the foundation" here. There are so many communities in our movement, that there is no such thing as "the community". There are many different opinions, and the positive thing is for them to be able to express themselves within the boundaries of respect.
I understand (even if I don't quite agree) how the board could take these decisions, but in my opinion this is more a blow to projects wishing for more inclusivity than to transparency and democracy. It sends an ambiguous message: you shall not express views that are overtly "woke", so to speak, or you can be left alone to deal with smear campaigns as we wish to protect our image. I don't think it is an encouraging view to pursue.
I can see why the board would fear for their image and want more discreet candidates, but I think strong, experienced candidates are just what we strategically need now to overcome hurdles, candidates like Ravan and Lane.
To finish, I will quote a famous Francophone Haitian writer, Marie Vieux-Chauvet: " Fear is a vice that takes root once it is cultivated. It takes time to recover from it ". Now is the moment to stand for free knowledge, to express our concern and respect for each other, as history of the past shows that progressive movements have always been brought down by internal divisions, orchestrated mostly by smear campaigns.....
With WikiLove to the board, to the communities, and to you, James.
Nattes à chat
Dear all. Some personal reflections on the candidate removal procedure.
Regarding the question of perceived neutrality, I wonder whether the principle applied in this case would have been interpreted in the same way under inverse circumstances. For example, if a candidate had been the subject of criticism by Al Jazeera for their political positions, would the removal have been considered with the same urgency? No intention to create divisions, I'm only interested in ensuring that our standards are applied consistently, regardless of the candidate's personal positions on a sensitive topic.
Another thing concerns the influence of media/external sources, which doesn't seem to have been taken into consideration in this discussion. The most concerning thing to me is that the opinions of individual members - which led to the unanimity of votes - were formed based more on external and partisan influences (or personal interpretations) than the Wikimedia activity and behavior of the candidates. I can understand that living in today's times, certain pressures make themselves felt and that we are Wikimedians even outside of projects, in everyday life. But that external factors can influence decisions that should remain faithful to the values and policies of the Wikimedia community is the least desirable thing at this moment.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban (she/her)*
*| Java EE Developer |*
camelia.boban@gmail.com M. +39 3383385545 WikiDonne Chair & Founder | WMF Gender & Climate Change Certified Organizer | NW Europe Grants Committee | WikiWomen* Task Force
*Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *| *WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne APS https://wikidonne.org/* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMDC - WMBE - WCS-UG
On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 2:26 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Dear James,
I don't think the Fram ban has anything to do with this, TBH. I understand that the board is currently under pressure with the two letters sent by the Congress and that some people experience fear to stand for the values of inclusivity the movement professed in our strategic orientation. The fact remains that a woman has experienced a smear campaign for expressing concerns about Palestine that were badly translated from Arabic and then used against her. By choosing to refuse her as a candidate and make her responsible for views expressed when she was not even a candidate, the board takes a position that can be qualified as non-neutral. People either from Palestine or Israel should not be stopped from becoming candidates.
Wikipedia is not a democracy either, and many people have been harassed and continue to be without being able to get justice. As for democracy, the wish for democracy goes two ways: some people representing gender gap projects have long been pointing out the lack of respect for underrepresented communities, and it's not like we are heading towards an improvement now. The community is not transparent either: pseudos are not transparent, and nobody in our movement is criticizing this. So democracy and transparency are arguments that need to be examined in context.
The foundation is ... a foundation and is not a democracy either (and this would not change anywhere else in the world). It has nevertheless been improving, IMO. The balance between the power of communities and the power of the foundation seems to me to achieve a certain balance of power, which can be called an imperfect dystopian status, certainly not a democracy.
I don't think we should be opposing "the community" to "the foundation" here. There are so many communities in our movement, that there is no such thing as "the community". There are many different opinions, and the positive thing is for them to be able to express themselves within the boundaries of respect.
I understand (even if I don't quite agree) how the board could take these decisions, but in my opinion this is more a blow to projects wishing for more inclusivity than to transparency and democracy. It sends an ambiguous message: you shall not express views that are overtly "woke", so to speak, or you can be left alone to deal with smear campaigns as we wish to protect our image. I don't think it is an encouraging view to pursue.
I can see why the board would fear for their image and want more discreet candidates, but I think strong, experienced candidates are just what we strategically need now to overcome hurdles, candidates like Ravan and Lane.
To finish, I will quote a famous Francophone Haitian writer, Marie Vieux-Chauvet: " Fear is a vice that takes root once it is cultivated. It takes time to recover from it ". Now is the moment to stand for free knowledge, to express our concern and respect for each other, as history of the past shows that progressive movements have always been brought down by internal divisions, orchestrated mostly by smear campaigns.....
With WikiLove to the board, to the communities, and to you, James.
Nattes à chat _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I dropped off Wikimedia a couple years ago in part because parts of the projects were becoming intolerably hateful and antisemitic. Taking a look at the mailing lists for the first time in a while, I see that things have somehow continued to worsen.
A Board candidate turns out to support an terrorist organization dedicated to exterminating all Jews, posts social media posts promoting antisemitic tropes, 10/7 rape denial, and phrases like "acts of oppression, aggression, massacres, and genocide that surpassed even the Jews" (later trying to defend the statement on Meta by saying "In Arabic, the expression “the Jews” is used to refer to the invading colonizers, and not to the Jews as a religious or ethnic group." (!)), and all that anyone on the Board can say about the disqualification (without a ban or even sanction!) is that the candidacy might "pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation"?
And as far as I can see, there has been zero public community/affiliate approval for even the minimal action of disqualification, and significant push for reversing it, and also action taken against the Trustee for suggesting that the WMF might not want to be associated with such things.
Tragic.
-- Yair Rand
On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 4:10 AM Camelia Boban camelia.boban@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all. Some personal reflections on the candidate removal procedure.
Regarding the question of perceived neutrality, I wonder whether the principle applied in this case would have been interpreted in the same way under inverse circumstances. For example, if a candidate had been the subject of criticism by Al Jazeera for their political positions, would the removal have been considered with the same urgency? No intention to create divisions, I'm only interested in ensuring that our standards are applied consistently, regardless of the candidate's personal positions on a sensitive topic.
Another thing concerns the influence of media/external sources, which doesn't seem to have been taken into consideration in this discussion. The most concerning thing to me is that the opinions of individual members - which led to the unanimity of votes - were formed based more on external and partisan influences (or personal interpretations) than the Wikimedia activity and behavior of the candidates. I can understand that living in today's times, certain pressures make themselves felt and that we are Wikimedians even outside of projects, in everyday life. But that external factors can influence decisions that should remain faithful to the values and policies of the Wikimedia community is the least desirable thing at this moment.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban (she/her)*
*| Java EE Developer |*
camelia.boban@gmail.com M. +39 3383385545 WikiDonne Chair & Founder | WMF Gender & Climate Change Certified Organizer | NW Europe Grants Committee | WikiWomen* Task Force
*Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *| *WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne APS https://wikidonne.org/* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMDC - WMBE - WCS-UG
On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 2:26 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Dear James,
I don't think the Fram ban has anything to do with this, TBH. I understand that the board is currently under pressure with the two letters sent by the Congress and that some people experience fear to stand for the values of inclusivity the movement professed in our strategic orientation. The fact remains that a woman has experienced a smear campaign for expressing concerns about Palestine that were badly translated from Arabic and then used against her. By choosing to refuse her as a candidate and make her responsible for views expressed when she was not even a candidate, the board takes a position that can be qualified as non-neutral. People either from Palestine or Israel should not be stopped from becoming candidates.
Wikipedia is not a democracy either, and many people have been harassed and continue to be without being able to get justice. As for democracy, the wish for democracy goes two ways: some people representing gender gap projects have long been pointing out the lack of respect for underrepresented communities, and it's not like we are heading towards an improvement now. The community is not transparent either: pseudos are not transparent, and nobody in our movement is criticizing this. So democracy and transparency are arguments that need to be examined in context.
The foundation is ... a foundation and is not a democracy either (and this would not change anywhere else in the world). It has nevertheless been improving, IMO. The balance between the power of communities and the power of the foundation seems to me to achieve a certain balance of power, which can be called an imperfect dystopian status, certainly not a democracy.
I don't think we should be opposing "the community" to "the foundation" here. There are so many communities in our movement, that there is no such thing as "the community". There are many different opinions, and the positive thing is for them to be able to express themselves within the boundaries of respect.
I understand (even if I don't quite agree) how the board could take these decisions, but in my opinion this is more a blow to projects wishing for more inclusivity than to transparency and democracy. It sends an ambiguous message: you shall not express views that are overtly "woke", so to speak, or you can be left alone to deal with smear campaigns as we wish to protect our image. I don't think it is an encouraging view to pursue.
I can see why the board would fear for their image and want more discreet candidates, but I think strong, experienced candidates are just what we strategically need now to overcome hurdles, candidates like Ravan and Lane.
To finish, I will quote a famous Francophone Haitian writer, Marie Vieux-Chauvet: " Fear is a vice that takes root once it is cultivated. It takes time to recover from it ". Now is the moment to stand for free knowledge, to express our concern and respect for each other, as history of the past shows that progressive movements have always been brought down by internal divisions, orchestrated mostly by smear campaigns.....
With WikiLove to the board, to the communities, and to you, James.
Nattes à chat _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 11:41 AM Lorenzo llosa@wikimedia.org wrote:
Nat's original message outlined the reasons for how candidates were assessed,
Nataliia also wrote, on the subject of excluding candidates: "The candidates have each been provided a summary and an explanation of the Board’s decision, along with the reasons for not providing these summaries publicly."
This is a necessary commitment to privacy for something like a hiring process. It's also a reasonable _option_ for candidates to exercise when they're excluded from a Board position. But if candidates agree that such a summary, alongside their response, can be shared publicly, in the interest of honest dialogue, transparency and accountability, it should be done.
Warmly, Erik
Hi Hannah,
When more than 1,000 of us (representing a wide variety of language communities) made a direct, straightforward request of the Wikimedia Board of Trustees in 2014, neither the board as a whole nor any individual member publicly acknowledged the existence of the request. Nor, of course, did they address its substance. So, I must commend you -- even when your letter had about 4 or 5 signatures, you got a response from a sitting Trustee (Victoria Doronina).
But that response has significant flaws that I haven't seen discussed:
Doronina discusses the candidacy of Lane Rasberry, making at least three statements that do not stand up under scrutiny.
1. She says that he "*stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI.*" *This is demonstrably false*, based solely on the evidence she directly cited. Rasberry did not make a prediction about the future (as Doronina claimed), but rather stated "*Please consider that right now, the Wikimedia Foundation is proposing to replace some of the text in Wikipedia articles from the content written by humans with content written by artificial intelligence*." He displays precisely such a proposal, written by a Wikimedia staff member in their official capacity, which states: "... *One of the ideas we’ve been discussing is the presentation of machine-generated, but editor moderated, simple summaries for readers....*"
2. Doronina also quotes from Rasberry's candidate statement, and concludes "*It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.*" But the very first sentence she quotes gives two options: "*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info.*" I emphasize the second part, in which Rasberry clearly acknowledges the possibility that the Foundation (presumably through a vote) might explicitly choose the path of opacity over the path of transparency. Is Doronina's position that the Trustees should pursue opacity without even acknowledging that they are doing so? Is her position that her subjective notion of what Rasberry's statement "sounds like" should override the reputation he has earned, in both volunteer and career positions, over decades? If so, how does that align with the "assume good faith" ethos we cultivate?
3. Doronina also says: "*To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee.*" Speaking as a former Editor in Chief of the *Signpost* myself, it is this statement that gives me the greatest pause. On a basic level, I agree with Doronina: One cannot simultaneously serve as a Trustee and edit an independent publication. As I said when withdrawing my own candidacy for Trustee in 2015: "*After all, I have been able to do a lot of work I take pride in, without any involvement with the Wikimedia Foundation; and joining the Board of Trustees would inevitably impact my ability to continue some of that work.* https://web.archive.org/web/20160328062819/http://wikistrategies.net/wikimedia-board-candidate-recommendations/" If Doronina believes one cannot simultaneously be a Trustee and a Signpost editor without potentially damaging the reputation of either or both institutions, I agree with her. I don't know what Rasberry believes, but nothing in his statement says that he would (or could) insist on holding both positions simultaneously. Rasberry articulates a general preference for transparency, which any Wikimedian will recognize as well aligned with our shared values. Nowhere does he state that he would pursue transparency should it conflict with the fiduciary duty of a Trustee. That disposition, as far as I can tell, exists only in Doronina's mind (and perhaps in the minds of more circumspect Trustees who have not chosen to speak publicly).
It is a revealing moment, for a Trustee to argue not merely against the position of a candidate, but in favor of his exclusion from an election, and simultaneously make such subjective and unfounded statements herself. I commend Doronina for giving us this window into her reasoning, but I find the reasoning problematic. Her clear message is that the subjective impressions of sitting Board members, in their personal capacity, are a legitimate basis for rejecting the candidacy of someone who has held numerous positions of trust both within and outside the Wikimedia movement spanning decades.
I wish I could speak to the claims about Ravan J Al-Taie's candidacy, but I cannot. Doronina does not cite any specific examples in her case, and I am not familiar with any of the issues there.
-Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 2:19 AM Victoria Doronina vdoronina@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Hannah,
I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.
Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.
As for Lane, he
- publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI - *this is not true*, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would know. Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
- Publicly written in the candidate statement:
*I set up a Right to Information https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me.*
To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as a trustee. He also writes:
*I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community. We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf, and what the development strategy for that country is.*
It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial information.
All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee, I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties and responsibilities.
As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 6:52 AM L C zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense to add the link to the index of petitions/complaints at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_re... so they are all centralized.
Selected quotes from other letters boycotting the election in protest.
"The Wikimedia Foundation has long emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, as well as to gender equity. Yet, by excluding Ravan—the only female candidate in this election—without any clear explanation and amid strong indications of political bias, the Foundation has violated all of these principles."
"We write to you with deep concern and strong objection to the recent decision to withdraw candidate Ravan Jaafar al-Taie from the ongoing election process for a seat on the Board of Trustees. This measure, taken without transparency or public justification, undermines the legitimacy of the process and contradicts the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity that the Wikimedia movement has promoted since its inception and that Strategy 2030 ratifies as guiding principles. The action is unfair, arbitrary, and sets a dangerous precedent for democracy and the efforts of female Wikipedians who actively fight for inclusion. Ravan is not only a valid candidate, but also the only woman in this electoral process."
"There have been two candidates rejected without a credible explanation. Rejecting either candidate based on “lack of experience”, political attacks or dubious conflict of interest have been based on falsehoods or just incomprehensible. Ravan was the only woman candidate left in the running and Lane was the only openly queer candidate remaining in the election. This has been the opposite of the previously publicly stated values of the WMF commitment to representing minority voices and diversity. The Board and Election Committee stated on Meta that they were aiming for 6 candidates to vote on, but there are just 4 now remaining, all men, and are less representative of the volunteer community."
At a minimum, this wide level of objection from different and significant parts of the community should result in an immediate independent investigation or a suspension of the election.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 04:47, Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have written a heartfelt letter for reform at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition. I encourage everyone across the movement to read, translate, and share this message as it is not just an enwiki issue but something that affects us all.
Sincerely, Hannah Clover _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org