Dear all,
We would like to specifically address the allegations related to harassment in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation employed independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on the information presented, the investigation found no support for the allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation if presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the allegations to be without merit.
On behalf of the Board,
María Sefidari
El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" jeblad@gmail.com escribió:
When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions to them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users are an invitation to fierce battles.
Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF, unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the problems, and move on.
No, I do not know any of the people involved.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < mariealice.gariel@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now complete and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and frustration of these past few months.
I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had more time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I
had
a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie Martin or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I have I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values.
Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign based on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of all the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with
them
closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
believed
everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF sites, email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised, questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve been told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist rant against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats to withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC funding. People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early in the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware of the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe for facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by prominent members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that case, right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter funds for personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French justice system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to gratuitous ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and dictating our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank you very much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses reimbursement“. None of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the goal of spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider community has clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position and the Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French media in the hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in the crisis.
I am also extremely disappointed that no one from this list asked us (the Board) what was happening when these allegations were made, with only a handful of people suggesting to wait before all the facts were known. Instead, you took for granted the very short and extremely biased English summaries of the Board’s communications (which were instantly circulated
on
this list without our consent and in violation of our chapter’s bylaws), and joined in the chorus of outrage, condemnation and verbal abuse.
But worse to me than all this, I am actually terrified at how easily the Wikimedia community can turn on a person, with no regard whatsoever for decency or legality, when it has made up its mind about who has no place there. I have personally experienced what it means to disagree with this angry mob: questioning the dominant opinion or calling out individuals’ toxic behaviour makes you in turn acceptable collateral damage and a “fair game” target for harassment.
Speaking of this, the movement as a whole needs to address the issue of staff-volunteers relations exemplified by the rapid turnover of executive staff across chapters. Nathalie stayed at WMFR an almost record breaking 4 years, but at what cost? I’m being extremely serious in adding that this conversation needs to take place before something irreversible happens as
a
result of harmful group behaviour within the community.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis // AlienSpoon
PS: for your information about my position regarding the WMF’s role in
this
crisis and their recent unilaterally added conditions [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_expectations_for_ Wikimedia_France_-_2017-2018] for payment of our FDC-attributed grant, I attach my email to Katy Love from Sept 20.
Katy, (Cc WMFr Board and Rémi)
In the WMF "Grant expectations" document sent to the Board of WMFr, you mention as a condition for APG funds payment that I do not resign from my position on the Board until the governance review is complete, and that
any
Board member planning to resign must report and justify it to WMF.
You also mention that you retain the right to cease funding WMFr if you consider that legal threats are being used inappropriately to stifle civil and appropriate participation in the chapter. Moreover, you condition payment to being informed if the chapter leadership feels that legal
action
is appropriate to take against current or former board members or staff.
Let me be clear: these conditions are outrageous and unacceptable.
First of all, my legitimacy as a Board member of WMFr does not come from any commitment to WMF but from being democratically elected by French chapter members. WMF has no say in who stays or not on the Board, and trying to intervene on such governance issues is, again, putting both organisations at risk of being legally recognised as co-employers.
Second, as a (volunteer) Board member I have been subjected to harassment, sexist abuse, and unjustified allegations of misconduct by community members, that have impacted my health and mental well being to the point where I was no longer able to do my (paid) job in cancer patient care and my GP put me on medical leave. A large volume of this abuse took place on WMF property (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro and the WMF-hosted, publicly archived mailing lists wikimedia-l and wikimediafr). You personally and on behalf of WMF encouraged French community members to challenge chapter leadership citing governance issues, without a word mentioning the violence suffered by the Board and executive staff at the hands of some French members during this crisis. Worse, you presented the Board's email condemning the harassment as inaccurate and problematic, which made the community feel all the more legitimate in their harmful attacks. When I reported the abuse in person to WMF employees during the site visit you personally empathised with my distress at the time, and thanked me for being honest about how your email to the wikimediafr list had made our already precarious situation untenable. And then you did nothing. My husband Rémi, who witnessed first hand the effects of the harassment on my health, called on you to release the site visit report so the
misconduct
allegations would stop. You didn't, until 3 days before our General Assembly (where the allegations were repeated), on the same day you asked that I stay on as a Board member. Even your choice of words in the "Grant expectations" document is telling: "egregious incivility" is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about unacceptable and illegal defamation and harassment with serious real life consequences. Rémi also called on the wikimedia-l list to stop the unfounded
allegations,
and was attacked in turn because of "his conflict of interest as the husband of a Board member". He also reported the abuse to the WMF governance committee, to the Suport and Safety team and mentioned it to Christophe Henner and Katherine Maher on Twitter, to no avail. To this day we haven't received any support or acknowledgement whatsoever. All the while the sexist abuse continues, and French editor MrButler was moderated on the wikimediafr maling list for his continued personal attacks against me. This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Board's email to the members was calling out, yet you continue to deliberately ignore it and refuse to do anything about it.
Finally, your asking to be informed of any legal action against chapter members or staff is yet another example of the WMF taking sides while posing as a neutral arbitrator. Calling someone out on their toxic behaviour or actually filing a complaint are no legal threats or intimidation, but by claiming they are you are trying to silence victims
by
denying them their basic rights to legal protection. At least two complaints have been filed against community members and more may be coming, including on my behalf. You will not be informed because it is not for WMF to decide whether they are justified or frivolous.
For all these reasons I am deeply shocked and hurt by your payment conditions and will not abide by the terms of your grant expectations.
With
most of WMFr funding hanging in the balance your unilaterally revised conditions amount to blackmail but I will not stay in harm's way at the request of the organisation who has failed me in every aspect when I came in good faith to work for the community. I will resign when I see fit to protect my health, and continue to speak honestly and publicly about your actions and empty words of safety and inclusivity.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis, vice chair of WMFr _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Maria, thank you.
Personnally, and as an engaged feminist in real life, I dont believe one word of these allegations.
My support goes to Christophe, and like you wrote, these allegations I think are not backed up by evidence as far as I have been informed).
Too many people within the francophone community are being accused - causing resentment - of too many things that are simply not true, for me to be able to believe in this.
Kind regards,
Natacha / Nattes à chat
Le 11 oct. 2017 à 19:54, María Sefidari kewlshrink@gmail.com a écrit :
Dear all,
We would like to specifically address the allegations related to harassment in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation employed independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on the information presented, the investigation found no support for the allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation if presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the allegations to be without merit.
On behalf of the Board,
María Sefidari
El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" jeblad@gmail.com escribió:
When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions to them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users are an invitation to fierce battles.
Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF, unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the problems, and move on.
No, I do not know any of the people involved.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < mariealice.gariel@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now complete and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and frustration of these past few months.
I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had more time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I
had
a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie Martin or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I have I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values.
Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign based on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of all the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with
them
closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
believed
everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF sites, email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised, questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve been told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist rant against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats to withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC funding. People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early in the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware of the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe for facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by prominent members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that case, right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter funds for personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French justice system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to gratuitous ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and dictating our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank you very much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses reimbursement“. None of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the goal of spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider community has clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position and the Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French media in the hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in the crisis.
I am also extremely disappointed that no one from this list asked us (the Board) what was happening when these allegations were made, with only a handful of people suggesting to wait before all the facts were known. Instead, you took for granted the very short and extremely biased English summaries of the Board’s communications (which were instantly circulated
on
this list without our consent and in violation of our chapter’s bylaws), and joined in the chorus of outrage, condemnation and verbal abuse.
But worse to me than all this, I am actually terrified at how easily the Wikimedia community can turn on a person, with no regard whatsoever for decency or legality, when it has made up its mind about who has no place there. I have personally experienced what it means to disagree with this angry mob: questioning the dominant opinion or calling out individuals’ toxic behaviour makes you in turn acceptable collateral damage and a “fair game” target for harassment.
Speaking of this, the movement as a whole needs to address the issue of staff-volunteers relations exemplified by the rapid turnover of executive staff across chapters. Nathalie stayed at WMFR an almost record breaking 4 years, but at what cost? I’m being extremely serious in adding that this conversation needs to take place before something irreversible happens as
a
result of harmful group behaviour within the community.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis // AlienSpoon
PS: for your information about my position regarding the WMF’s role in
this
crisis and their recent unilaterally added conditions [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_expectations_for_ Wikimedia_France_-_2017-2018] for payment of our FDC-attributed grant, I attach my email to Katy Love from Sept 20.
Katy, (Cc WMFr Board and Rémi)
In the WMF "Grant expectations" document sent to the Board of WMFr, you mention as a condition for APG funds payment that I do not resign from my position on the Board until the governance review is complete, and that
any
Board member planning to resign must report and justify it to WMF.
You also mention that you retain the right to cease funding WMFr if you consider that legal threats are being used inappropriately to stifle civil and appropriate participation in the chapter. Moreover, you condition payment to being informed if the chapter leadership feels that legal
action
is appropriate to take against current or former board members or staff.
Let me be clear: these conditions are outrageous and unacceptable.
First of all, my legitimacy as a Board member of WMFr does not come from any commitment to WMF but from being democratically elected by French chapter members. WMF has no say in who stays or not on the Board, and trying to intervene on such governance issues is, again, putting both organisations at risk of being legally recognised as co-employers.
Second, as a (volunteer) Board member I have been subjected to harassment, sexist abuse, and unjustified allegations of misconduct by community members, that have impacted my health and mental well being to the point where I was no longer able to do my (paid) job in cancer patient care and my GP put me on medical leave. A large volume of this abuse took place on WMF property (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro and the WMF-hosted, publicly archived mailing lists wikimedia-l and wikimediafr). You personally and on behalf of WMF encouraged French community members to challenge chapter leadership citing governance issues, without a word mentioning the violence suffered by the Board and executive staff at the hands of some French members during this crisis. Worse, you presented the Board's email condemning the harassment as inaccurate and problematic, which made the community feel all the more legitimate in their harmful attacks. When I reported the abuse in person to WMF employees during the site visit you personally empathised with my distress at the time, and thanked me for being honest about how your email to the wikimediafr list had made our already precarious situation untenable. And then you did nothing. My husband Rémi, who witnessed first hand the effects of the harassment on my health, called on you to release the site visit report so the
misconduct
allegations would stop. You didn't, until 3 days before our General Assembly (where the allegations were repeated), on the same day you asked that I stay on as a Board member. Even your choice of words in the "Grant expectations" document is telling: "egregious incivility" is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about unacceptable and illegal defamation and harassment with serious real life consequences. Rémi also called on the wikimedia-l list to stop the unfounded
allegations,
and was attacked in turn because of "his conflict of interest as the husband of a Board member". He also reported the abuse to the WMF governance committee, to the Suport and Safety team and mentioned it to Christophe Henner and Katherine Maher on Twitter, to no avail. To this day we haven't received any support or acknowledgement whatsoever. All the while the sexist abuse continues, and French editor MrButler was moderated on the wikimediafr maling list for his continued personal attacks against me. This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Board's email to the members was calling out, yet you continue to deliberately ignore it and refuse to do anything about it.
Finally, your asking to be informed of any legal action against chapter members or staff is yet another example of the WMF taking sides while posing as a neutral arbitrator. Calling someone out on their toxic behaviour or actually filing a complaint are no legal threats or intimidation, but by claiming they are you are trying to silence victims
by
denying them their basic rights to legal protection. At least two complaints have been filed against community members and more may be coming, including on my behalf. You will not be informed because it is not for WMF to decide whether they are justified or frivolous.
For all these reasons I am deeply shocked and hurt by your payment conditions and will not abide by the terms of your grant expectations.
With
most of WMFr funding hanging in the balance your unilaterally revised conditions amount to blackmail but I will not stay in harm's way at the request of the organisation who has failed me in every aspect when I came in good faith to work for the community. I will resign when I see fit to protect my health, and continue to speak honestly and publicly about your actions and empty words of safety and inclusivity.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis, vice chair of WMFr _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
For the moment I have virtually zero trust in all involved, including the wmf board. Reorganize and regain trust!
John Erling Blad
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote:
Hi Maria, thank you.
Personnally, and as an engaged feminist in real life, I dont believe one word of these allegations.
My support goes to Christophe, and like you wrote, these allegations I think are not backed up by evidence as far as I have been informed).
Too many people within the francophone community are being accused - causing resentment - of too many things that are simply not true, for me to be able to believe in this.
Kind regards,
Natacha / Nattes à chat
Le 11 oct. 2017 à 19:54, María Sefidari kewlshrink@gmail.com a écrit :
Dear all,
We would like to specifically address the allegations related to
harassment
in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation
employed
independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on
the
information presented, the investigation found no support for the allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation
Board
as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation
if
presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the allegations to be without merit.
On behalf of the Board,
María Sefidari
El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" jeblad@gmail.com escribió:
When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions
to
them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users are an invitation to fierce battles.
Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF, unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the problems, and move on.
No, I do not know any of the people involved.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < mariealice.gariel@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now
complete
and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and frustration of these past few months.
I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had
more
time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I
had
a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie
Martin
or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I
have
I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values.
Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign
based
on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of all the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with
them
closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
believed
everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF
sites,
email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised, questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve been told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist
rant
against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats to withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC funding. People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early
in
the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware
of
the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe
for
facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by prominent members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that
case,
right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter funds
for
personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French justice system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to gratuitous ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and dictating our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank you
very
much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses reimbursement“.
None
of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the goal of spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider community
has
clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position and
the
Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French media in
the
hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in the crisis.
I am also extremely disappointed that no one from this list asked us
(the
Board) what was happening when these allegations were made, with only a handful of people suggesting to wait before all the facts were known. Instead, you took for granted the very short and extremely biased
English
summaries of the Board’s communications (which were instantly circulated
on
this list without our consent and in violation of our chapter’s bylaws), and joined in the chorus of outrage, condemnation and verbal abuse.
But worse to me than all this, I am actually terrified at how easily the Wikimedia community can turn on a person, with no regard whatsoever for decency or legality, when it has made up its mind about who has no place there. I have personally experienced what it means to disagree with this angry mob: questioning the dominant opinion or calling out individuals’ toxic behaviour makes you in turn acceptable collateral damage and a
“fair
game” target for harassment.
Speaking of this, the movement as a whole needs to address the issue of staff-volunteers relations exemplified by the rapid turnover of
executive
staff across chapters. Nathalie stayed at WMFR an almost record
breaking 4
years, but at what cost? I’m being extremely serious in adding that this conversation needs to take place before something irreversible happens
as
a
result of harmful group behaviour within the community.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis // AlienSpoon
PS: for your information about my position regarding the WMF’s role in
this
crisis and their recent unilaterally added conditions [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_expectations_for_ Wikimedia_France_-_2017-2018] for payment of our FDC-attributed grant, I attach my email to Katy Love from Sept 20.
Katy, (Cc WMFr Board and Rémi)
In the WMF "Grant expectations" document sent to the Board of WMFr, you mention as a condition for APG funds payment that I do not resign from
my
position on the Board until the governance review is complete, and that
any
Board member planning to resign must report and justify it to WMF.
You also mention that you retain the right to cease funding WMFr if you consider that legal threats are being used inappropriately to stifle
civil
and appropriate participation in the chapter. Moreover, you condition payment to being informed if the chapter leadership feels that legal
action
is appropriate to take against current or former board members or staff.
Let me be clear: these conditions are outrageous and unacceptable.
First of all, my legitimacy as a Board member of WMFr does not come from any commitment to WMF but from being democratically elected by French chapter members. WMF has no say in who stays or not on the Board, and trying to intervene on such governance issues is, again, putting both organisations at risk of being legally recognised as co-employers.
Second, as a (volunteer) Board member I have been subjected to
harassment,
sexist abuse, and unjustified allegations of misconduct by community members, that have impacted my health and mental well being to the point where I was no longer able to do my (paid) job in cancer patient care
and
my GP put me on medical leave. A large volume of this abuse took place
on
WMF property (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro and the WMF-hosted, publicly archived mailing lists wikimedia-l and wikimediafr). You personally and on behalf of WMF encouraged French community members
to
challenge chapter leadership citing governance issues, without a word mentioning the violence suffered by the Board and executive staff at the hands of some French members during this crisis. Worse, you presented
the
Board's email condemning the harassment as inaccurate and problematic, which made the community feel all the more legitimate in their harmful attacks. When I reported the abuse in person to WMF employees during the site
visit
you personally empathised with my distress at the time, and thanked me
for
being honest about how your email to the wikimediafr list had made our already precarious situation untenable. And then you did nothing. My husband Rémi, who witnessed first hand the effects of the harassment
on
my health, called on you to release the site visit report so the
misconduct
allegations would stop. You didn't, until 3 days before our General Assembly (where the allegations were repeated), on the same day you
asked
that I stay on as a Board member. Even your choice of words in the
"Grant
expectations" document is telling: "egregious incivility" is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about unacceptable and illegal defamation and harassment with serious real life consequences. Rémi also called on the wikimedia-l list to stop the unfounded
allegations,
and was attacked in turn because of "his conflict of interest as the husband of a Board member". He also reported the abuse to the WMF governance committee, to the Suport and Safety team and mentioned it to Christophe Henner and Katherine Maher on Twitter, to no avail. To this
day
we haven't received any support or acknowledgement whatsoever. All the while the sexist abuse continues, and French editor MrButler was
moderated
on the wikimediafr maling list for his continued personal attacks
against
me. This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Board's email to the
members
was calling out, yet you continue to deliberately ignore it and refuse
to
do anything about it.
Finally, your asking to be informed of any legal action against chapter members or staff is yet another example of the WMF taking sides while posing as a neutral arbitrator. Calling someone out on their toxic behaviour or actually filing a complaint are no legal threats or intimidation, but by claiming they are you are trying to silence victims
by
denying them their basic rights to legal protection. At least two complaints have been filed against community members and more may be coming, including on my behalf. You will not be informed because it is
not
for WMF to decide whether they are justified or frivolous.
For all these reasons I am deeply shocked and hurt by your payment conditions and will not abide by the terms of your grant expectations.
With
most of WMFr funding hanging in the balance your unilaterally revised conditions amount to blackmail but I will not stay in harm's way at the request of the organisation who has failed me in every aspect when I
came
in good faith to work for the community. I will resign when I see fit to protect my health, and continue to speak honestly and publicly about
your
actions and empty words of safety and inclusivity.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis, vice chair of WMFr _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I worked in France some years ago, and I had the feeling that in my experience allegations of harassment were more common there than in other countries. At least in the tertiary sector.
My idea is that instead of fixing the disfunctionalities of the working environment (which in France seemed to be above avarage compared to other countries) it is inevitable to add another one on the list. There is usually some professional boss at the end of the chain that cut them before it's too late.
There was not even a point in blaming a specific person for something at a certain point (they always balmed someone, I ma just saying no point to me)... it all looked like a continuum of mismanaged issues where evrybody was victim and executioner at the same time. I believe that this is what happen in a system that shows a relatively scarcity of common sense, combined with an inability to admit there is an issue before it grows too much. It's like something involuting in its own parody, and sometimes it looks tragic and comic at the same time.
Once I made fun with a André Malroux style of the death of the working ethics of the "Génération Mitterrand", but they so much did not like that. Of course I am aware that I am not the free spirit à la Sartre that knows how to to criticize the decadence of the French bourgeoise in the right way.
Il Mercoledì 11 Ottobre 2017 23:51, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com ha scritto:
For the moment I have virtually zero trust in all involved, including the wmf board. Reorganize and regain trust!
John Erling Blad
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Natacha Rault n.rault@me.com wrote:
Hi Maria, thank you.
Personnally, and as an engaged feminist in real life, I dont believe one word of these allegations.
My support goes to Christophe, and like you wrote, these allegations I think are not backed up by evidence as far as I have been informed).
Too many people within the francophone community are being accused - causing resentment - of too many things that are simply not true, for me to be able to believe in this.
Kind regards,
Natacha / Nattes à chat
Le 11 oct. 2017 à 19:54, María Sefidari kewlshrink@gmail.com a écrit :
Dear all,
We would like to specifically address the allegations related to
harassment
in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation
employed
independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on
the
information presented, the investigation found no support for the allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation
Board
as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation
if
presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the allegations to be without merit.
On behalf of the Board,
María Sefidari
El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" jeblad@gmail.com escribió:
When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions
to
them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users are an invitation to fierce battles.
Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF, unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the problems, and move on.
No, I do not know any of the people involved.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < mariealice.gariel@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now
complete
and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and frustration of these past few months.
I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had
more
time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I
had
a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie
Martin
or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I
have
I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values.
Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign
based
on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of all the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with
them
closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
believed
everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF
sites,
email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised, questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve been told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist
rant
against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats to withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC funding. People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early
in
the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware
of
the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe
for
facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by prominent members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that
case,
right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter funds
for
personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French justice system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to gratuitous ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and dictating our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank you
very
much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses reimbursement“.
None
of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the goal of spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider community
has
clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position and
the
Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French media in
the
hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in the crisis.
I am also extremely disappointed that no one from this list asked us
(the
Board) what was happening when these allegations were made, with only a handful of people suggesting to wait before all the facts were known. Instead, you took for granted the very short and extremely biased
English
summaries of the Board’s communications (which were instantly circulated
on
this list without our consent and in violation of our chapter’s bylaws), and joined in the chorus of outrage, condemnation and verbal abuse.
But worse to me than all this, I am actually terrified at how easily the Wikimedia community can turn on a person, with no regard whatsoever for decency or legality, when it has made up its mind about who has no place there. I have personally experienced what it means to disagree with this angry mob: questioning the dominant opinion or calling out individuals’ toxic behaviour makes you in turn acceptable collateral damage and a
“fair
game” target for harassment.
Speaking of this, the movement as a whole needs to address the issue of staff-volunteers relations exemplified by the rapid turnover of
executive
staff across chapters. Nathalie stayed at WMFR an almost record
breaking 4
years, but at what cost? I’m being extremely serious in adding that this conversation needs to take place before something irreversible happens
as
a
result of harmful group behaviour within the community.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis // AlienSpoon
PS: for your information about my position regarding the WMF’s role in
this
crisis and their recent unilaterally added conditions [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_expectations_for_ Wikimedia_France_-_2017-2018] for payment of our FDC-attributed grant, I attach my email to Katy Love from Sept 20.
Katy, (Cc WMFr Board and Rémi)
In the WMF "Grant expectations" document sent to the Board of WMFr, you mention as a condition for APG funds payment that I do not resign from
my
position on the Board until the governance review is complete, and that
any
Board member planning to resign must report and justify it to WMF.
You also mention that you retain the right to cease funding WMFr if you consider that legal threats are being used inappropriately to stifle
civil
and appropriate participation in the chapter. Moreover, you condition payment to being informed if the chapter leadership feels that legal
action
is appropriate to take against current or former board members or staff.
Let me be clear: these conditions are outrageous and unacceptable.
First of all, my legitimacy as a Board member of WMFr does not come from any commitment to WMF but from being democratically elected by French chapter members. WMF has no say in who stays or not on the Board, and trying to intervene on such governance issues is, again, putting both organisations at risk of being legally recognised as co-employers.
Second, as a (volunteer) Board member I have been subjected to
harassment,
sexist abuse, and unjustified allegations of misconduct by community members, that have impacted my health and mental well being to the point where I was no longer able to do my (paid) job in cancer patient care
and
my GP put me on medical leave. A large volume of this abuse took place
on
WMF property (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro and the WMF-hosted, publicly archived mailing lists wikimedia-l and wikimediafr). You personally and on behalf of WMF encouraged French community members
to
challenge chapter leadership citing governance issues, without a word mentioning the violence suffered by the Board and executive staff at the hands of some French members during this crisis. Worse, you presented
the
Board's email condemning the harassment as inaccurate and problematic, which made the community feel all the more legitimate in their harmful attacks. When I reported the abuse in person to WMF employees during the site
visit
you personally empathised with my distress at the time, and thanked me
for
being honest about how your email to the wikimediafr list had made our already precarious situation untenable. And then you did nothing. My husband Rémi, who witnessed first hand the effects of the harassment
on
my health, called on you to release the site visit report so the
misconduct
allegations would stop. You didn't, until 3 days before our General Assembly (where the allegations were repeated), on the same day you
asked
that I stay on as a Board member. Even your choice of words in the
"Grant
expectations" document is telling: "egregious incivility" is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about unacceptable and illegal defamation and harassment with serious real life consequences. Rémi also called on the wikimedia-l list to stop the unfounded
allegations,
and was attacked in turn because of "his conflict of interest as the husband of a Board member". He also reported the abuse to the WMF governance committee, to the Suport and Safety team and mentioned it to Christophe Henner and Katherine Maher on Twitter, to no avail. To this
day
we haven't received any support or acknowledgement whatsoever. All the while the sexist abuse continues, and French editor MrButler was
moderated
on the wikimediafr maling list for his continued personal attacks
against
me. This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Board's email to the
members
was calling out, yet you continue to deliberately ignore it and refuse
to
do anything about it.
Finally, your asking to be informed of any legal action against chapter members or staff is yet another example of the WMF taking sides while posing as a neutral arbitrator. Calling someone out on their toxic behaviour or actually filing a complaint are no legal threats or intimidation, but by claiming they are you are trying to silence victims
by
denying them their basic rights to legal protection. At least two complaints have been filed against community members and more may be coming, including on my behalf. You will not be informed because it is
not
for WMF to decide whether they are justified or frivolous.
For all these reasons I am deeply shocked and hurt by your payment conditions and will not abide by the terms of your grant expectations.
With
most of WMFr funding hanging in the balance your unilaterally revised conditions amount to blackmail but I will not stay in harm's way at the request of the organisation who has failed me in every aspect when I
came
in good faith to work for the community. I will resign when I see fit to protect my health, and continue to speak honestly and publicly about
your
actions and empty words of safety and inclusivity.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis, vice chair of WMFr _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Dear Maria, Dear all,
The Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees, the executive and the legal management of the Wikimedia Foundation have been informed of Nathalie Martin's complaint against her former employer now member of your board, and then of the criminal complaint against this same person (facts from his time in Wikimédia France and other from his time in your Board).
It would have been logical for a board of trustees member to gather her testimony. No one has sought to make contact with her. Why? At the very least, the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees could have requested a copy of the complaint, as well as the various testimonies, so that they could study them and make their opinion. We had no solicitation. Why? From what I see, the Wikimedia Foundation has done everything to stifle the problem. Here is the only initiative WMF has taken: paid "independent lawyers" (a concept unknown to me…) to "question Christophe". He responded, to the general surprise, that there was no problem. Do you really feel that this is a serious investigation? Honestly? Why did not these lawyers also hear Nathalie? Why did these lawyers not ask questions to the Wikimédia France Board of trustees members? Only with the testimony of the defendant himself, the Wikimedia Foundation today states that there is no problem. ... During the site visit, Nathalie proposed to the Wikimedia Foundation representatives to organize a confrontation. Not only did she have a flat denial, but, moreover, it was replied that it must not be addressed. Why did the Wikimedia Foundation not accede to this request for confrontation? Not to know the truth which can be too embarrassing to assume?
We have a movement employee who brilliantly held management responsibilities for 4 years (great longevity for an Executive Director…) who asked for help. And what is the answer of the movement, of the Wikimedia Foundation? Nothing. Nothing was undertaken to give her any kind of listening or help.
Marie-Alice Mathis, who courageously expressed disapproval of the sexist harassment of Nathalie, was also harassed by community members. Nathalie and Marie-Alice suffered health damages and had medical leaves issued by real general practitioners. The Wikimedia Foundation was informed and what did you do? Nothing, or worst: two messages from your staff legitimizing the harassment and one from a member of your board who publicly stated against Wikimédia France without any prior contact with us. What kind of help or support did you offer to Marie-Alice?
The outcome of the complaints is not even the issue at this stage and this is not my point (I’m not a judge as you or other community member think they are). The real problem is that today a man in the movement, if he has power position, can do absolutely everything he wants without any control. The problem is, despite all the empty values you’re communicating on, you legitimize whatever the community does. Because the community is the measure of all things. No objective process is foreseen to protect women (and more generally, people) or at least to hear them. Do you find this normal for a movement that advocates inclusiveness and respect?
I’ve read an ardent defender of epicene style of writing who is accusing of lying other women because of their private then public declarations. Having no clue of what is in the procedure. Thank you for enlightening me about true fight with feminism.
I’m glad that « We take all allegations of harassment seriously », but I can not endorse this functioning which goes against legality and simply against human values.
N.B: English is not my native language, may you be as tolerant of my selected words or sentences construction as with harassing behavior. Thanks for your understanding.
Regards, -- Emeric Vallespi
On 11 Oct 2017, at 19:54, María Sefidari kewlshrink@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
We would like to specifically address the allegations related to harassment in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation employed independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on the information presented, the investigation found no support for the allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation if presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the allegations to be without merit.
On behalf of the Board,
María Sefidari
El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" jeblad@gmail.com escribió:
When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions to them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users are an invitation to fierce battles.
Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF, unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the problems, and move on.
No, I do not know any of the people involved.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < mariealice.gariel@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now complete and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and frustration of these past few months.
I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had more time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I
had
a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie Martin or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I have I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values.
Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign based on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of all the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with
them
closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
believed
everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF sites, email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised, questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve been told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist rant against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats to withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC funding. People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early in the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware of the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe for facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by prominent members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that case, right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter funds for personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French justice system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to gratuitous ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and dictating our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank you very much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses reimbursement“. None of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the goal of spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider community has clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position and the Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French media in the hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in the crisis.
I am also extremely disappointed that no one from this list asked us (the Board) what was happening when these allegations were made, with only a handful of people suggesting to wait before all the facts were known. Instead, you took for granted the very short and extremely biased English summaries of the Board’s communications (which were instantly circulated
on
this list without our consent and in violation of our chapter’s bylaws), and joined in the chorus of outrage, condemnation and verbal abuse.
But worse to me than all this, I am actually terrified at how easily the Wikimedia community can turn on a person, with no regard whatsoever for decency or legality, when it has made up its mind about who has no place there. I have personally experienced what it means to disagree with this angry mob: questioning the dominant opinion or calling out individuals’ toxic behaviour makes you in turn acceptable collateral damage and a “fair game” target for harassment.
Speaking of this, the movement as a whole needs to address the issue of staff-volunteers relations exemplified by the rapid turnover of executive staff across chapters. Nathalie stayed at WMFR an almost record breaking 4 years, but at what cost? I’m being extremely serious in adding that this conversation needs to take place before something irreversible happens as
a
result of harmful group behaviour within the community.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis // AlienSpoon
PS: for your information about my position regarding the WMF’s role in
this
crisis and their recent unilaterally added conditions [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_expectations_for_ Wikimedia_France_-_2017-2018] for payment of our FDC-attributed grant, I attach my email to Katy Love from Sept 20.
Katy, (Cc WMFr Board and Rémi)
In the WMF "Grant expectations" document sent to the Board of WMFr, you mention as a condition for APG funds payment that I do not resign from my position on the Board until the governance review is complete, and that
any
Board member planning to resign must report and justify it to WMF.
You also mention that you retain the right to cease funding WMFr if you consider that legal threats are being used inappropriately to stifle civil and appropriate participation in the chapter. Moreover, you condition payment to being informed if the chapter leadership feels that legal
action
is appropriate to take against current or former board members or staff.
Let me be clear: these conditions are outrageous and unacceptable.
First of all, my legitimacy as a Board member of WMFr does not come from any commitment to WMF but from being democratically elected by French chapter members. WMF has no say in who stays or not on the Board, and trying to intervene on such governance issues is, again, putting both organisations at risk of being legally recognised as co-employers.
Second, as a (volunteer) Board member I have been subjected to harassment, sexist abuse, and unjustified allegations of misconduct by community members, that have impacted my health and mental well being to the point where I was no longer able to do my (paid) job in cancer patient care and my GP put me on medical leave. A large volume of this abuse took place on WMF property (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro and the WMF-hosted, publicly archived mailing lists wikimedia-l and wikimediafr). You personally and on behalf of WMF encouraged French community members to challenge chapter leadership citing governance issues, without a word mentioning the violence suffered by the Board and executive staff at the hands of some French members during this crisis. Worse, you presented the Board's email condemning the harassment as inaccurate and problematic, which made the community feel all the more legitimate in their harmful attacks. When I reported the abuse in person to WMF employees during the site visit you personally empathised with my distress at the time, and thanked me for being honest about how your email to the wikimediafr list had made our already precarious situation untenable. And then you did nothing. My husband Rémi, who witnessed first hand the effects of the harassment on my health, called on you to release the site visit report so the
misconduct
allegations would stop. You didn't, until 3 days before our General Assembly (where the allegations were repeated), on the same day you asked that I stay on as a Board member. Even your choice of words in the "Grant expectations" document is telling: "egregious incivility" is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about unacceptable and illegal defamation and harassment with serious real life consequences. Rémi also called on the wikimedia-l list to stop the unfounded
allegations,
and was attacked in turn because of "his conflict of interest as the husband of a Board member". He also reported the abuse to the WMF governance committee, to the Suport and Safety team and mentioned it to Christophe Henner and Katherine Maher on Twitter, to no avail. To this day we haven't received any support or acknowledgement whatsoever. All the while the sexist abuse continues, and French editor MrButler was moderated on the wikimediafr maling list for his continued personal attacks against me. This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Board's email to the members was calling out, yet you continue to deliberately ignore it and refuse to do anything about it.
Finally, your asking to be informed of any legal action against chapter members or staff is yet another example of the WMF taking sides while posing as a neutral arbitrator. Calling someone out on their toxic behaviour or actually filing a complaint are no legal threats or intimidation, but by claiming they are you are trying to silence victims
by
denying them their basic rights to legal protection. At least two complaints have been filed against community members and more may be coming, including on my behalf. You will not be informed because it is not for WMF to decide whether they are justified or frivolous.
For all these reasons I am deeply shocked and hurt by your payment conditions and will not abide by the terms of your grant expectations.
With
most of WMFr funding hanging in the balance your unilaterally revised conditions amount to blackmail but I will not stay in harm's way at the request of the organisation who has failed me in every aspect when I came in good faith to work for the community. I will resign when I see fit to protect my health, and continue to speak honestly and publicly about your actions and empty words of safety and inclusivity.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis, vice chair of WMFr _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Emeric,
I am very pleased that you take mental health seriously. I remember, not so long ago, that your actions while you were in Wikimedia France had serious impact on the mental health of at least two of your members.
In January, someone had a meltdown just in front of you. Could you remind us what you did after that ?
In April, you learnt that your actions as a chair caused me a medical leave. What can the Foundation and the movement as a whole learn about how you dealt with the situation ?
Warmly,
Caroline
2017-10-12 12:39 GMT+02:00 Emeric Vallespi emeric.vallespi@gmail.com:
Dear Maria, Dear all,
The Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees, the executive and the legal management of the Wikimedia Foundation have been informed of Nathalie Martin's complaint against her former employer now member of your board, and then of the criminal complaint against this same person (facts from his time in Wikimédia France and other from his time in your Board).
It would have been logical for a board of trustees member to gather her testimony. No one has sought to make contact with her. Why? At the very least, the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees could have requested a copy of the complaint, as well as the various testimonies, so that they could study them and make their opinion. We had no solicitation. Why? From what I see, the Wikimedia Foundation has done everything to stifle the problem. Here is the only initiative WMF has taken: paid "independent lawyers" (a concept unknown to me…) to "question Christophe". He responded, to the general surprise, that there was no problem. Do you really feel that this is a serious investigation? Honestly? Why did not these lawyers also hear Nathalie? Why did these lawyers not ask questions to the Wikimédia France Board of trustees members? Only with the testimony of the defendant himself, the Wikimedia Foundation today states that there is no problem. ... During the site visit, Nathalie proposed to the Wikimedia Foundation representatives to organize a confrontation. Not only did she have a flat denial, but, moreover, it was replied that it must not be addressed. Why did the Wikimedia Foundation not accede to this request for confrontation? Not to know the truth which can be too embarrassing to assume?
We have a movement employee who brilliantly held management responsibilities for 4 years (great longevity for an Executive Director…) who asked for help. And what is the answer of the movement, of the Wikimedia Foundation? Nothing. Nothing was undertaken to give her any kind of listening or help.
Marie-Alice Mathis, who courageously expressed disapproval of the sexist harassment of Nathalie, was also harassed by community members. Nathalie and Marie-Alice suffered health damages and had medical leaves issued by real general practitioners. The Wikimedia Foundation was informed and what did you do? Nothing, or worst: two messages from your staff legitimizing the harassment and one from a member of your board who publicly stated against Wikimédia France without any prior contact with us. What kind of help or support did you offer to Marie-Alice?
The outcome of the complaints is not even the issue at this stage and this is not my point (I’m not a judge as you or other community member think they are). The real problem is that today a man in the movement, if he has power position, can do absolutely everything he wants without any control. The problem is, despite all the empty values you’re communicating on, you legitimize whatever the community does. Because the community is the measure of all things. No objective process is foreseen to protect women (and more generally, people) or at least to hear them. Do you find this normal for a movement that advocates inclusiveness and respect?
I’ve read an ardent defender of epicene style of writing who is accusing of lying other women because of their private then public declarations. Having no clue of what is in the procedure. Thank you for enlightening me about true fight with feminism.
I’m glad that « We take all allegations of harassment seriously », but I can not endorse this functioning which goes against legality and simply against human values.
N.B: English is not my native language, may you be as tolerant of my selected words or sentences construction as with harassing behavior. Thanks for your understanding.
Regards,
Emeric Vallespi
On 11 Oct 2017, at 19:54, María Sefidari kewlshrink@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
We would like to specifically address the allegations related to
harassment
in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation
employed
independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on
the
information presented, the investigation found no support for the allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation
Board
as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation
if
presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the allegations to be without merit.
On behalf of the Board,
María Sefidari
El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" jeblad@gmail.com escribió:
When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions
to
them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users are an invitation to fierce battles.
Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF, unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the problems, and move on.
No, I do not know any of the people involved.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < mariealice.gariel@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now
complete
and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and frustration of these past few months.
I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had
more
time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I
had
a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie
Martin
or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I
have
I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values.
Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign
based
on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of all the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with
them
closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
believed
everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF
sites,
email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised, questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve been told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist
rant
against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats to withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC funding. People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early
in
the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware
of
the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe
for
facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by prominent members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that
case,
right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter funds
for
personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French justice system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to gratuitous ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and dictating our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank you
very
much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses reimbursement“.
None
of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the goal of spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider community
has
clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position and
the
Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French media in
the
hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in the crisis.
I am also extremely disappointed that no one from this list asked us
(the
Board) what was happening when these allegations were made, with only a handful of people suggesting to wait before all the facts were known. Instead, you took for granted the very short and extremely biased
English
summaries of the Board’s communications (which were instantly circulated
on
this list without our consent and in violation of our chapter’s bylaws), and joined in the chorus of outrage, condemnation and verbal abuse.
But worse to me than all this, I am actually terrified at how easily the Wikimedia community can turn on a person, with no regard whatsoever for decency or legality, when it has made up its mind about who has no place there. I have personally experienced what it means to disagree with this angry mob: questioning the dominant opinion or calling out individuals’ toxic behaviour makes you in turn acceptable collateral damage and a
“fair
game” target for harassment.
Speaking of this, the movement as a whole needs to address the issue of staff-volunteers relations exemplified by the rapid turnover of
executive
staff across chapters. Nathalie stayed at WMFR an almost record
breaking 4
years, but at what cost? I’m being extremely serious in adding that this conversation needs to take place before something irreversible happens
as
a
result of harmful group behaviour within the community.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis // AlienSpoon
PS: for your information about my position regarding the WMF’s role in
this
crisis and their recent unilaterally added conditions [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_expectations_for_ Wikimedia_France_-_2017-2018] for payment of our FDC-attributed grant, I attach my email to Katy Love from Sept 20.
Katy, (Cc WMFr Board and Rémi)
In the WMF "Grant expectations" document sent to the Board of WMFr, you mention as a condition for APG funds payment that I do not resign from
my
position on the Board until the governance review is complete, and that
any
Board member planning to resign must report and justify it to WMF.
You also mention that you retain the right to cease funding WMFr if you consider that legal threats are being used inappropriately to stifle
civil
and appropriate participation in the chapter. Moreover, you condition payment to being informed if the chapter leadership feels that legal
action
is appropriate to take against current or former board members or staff.
Let me be clear: these conditions are outrageous and unacceptable.
First of all, my legitimacy as a Board member of WMFr does not come from any commitment to WMF but from being democratically elected by French chapter members. WMF has no say in who stays or not on the Board, and trying to intervene on such governance issues is, again, putting both organisations at risk of being legally recognised as co-employers.
Second, as a (volunteer) Board member I have been subjected to
harassment,
sexist abuse, and unjustified allegations of misconduct by community members, that have impacted my health and mental well being to the point where I was no longer able to do my (paid) job in cancer patient care
and
my GP put me on medical leave. A large volume of this abuse took place
on
WMF property (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro and the WMF-hosted, publicly archived mailing lists wikimedia-l and wikimediafr). You personally and on behalf of WMF encouraged French community members
to
challenge chapter leadership citing governance issues, without a word mentioning the violence suffered by the Board and executive staff at the hands of some French members during this crisis. Worse, you presented
the
Board's email condemning the harassment as inaccurate and problematic, which made the community feel all the more legitimate in their harmful attacks. When I reported the abuse in person to WMF employees during the site
visit
you personally empathised with my distress at the time, and thanked me
for
being honest about how your email to the wikimediafr list had made our already precarious situation untenable. And then you did nothing. My husband Rémi, who witnessed first hand the effects of the harassment
on
my health, called on you to release the site visit report so the
misconduct
allegations would stop. You didn't, until 3 days before our General Assembly (where the allegations were repeated), on the same day you
asked
that I stay on as a Board member. Even your choice of words in the
"Grant
expectations" document is telling: "egregious incivility" is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about unacceptable and illegal defamation and harassment with serious real life consequences. Rémi also called on the wikimedia-l list to stop the unfounded
allegations,
and was attacked in turn because of "his conflict of interest as the husband of a Board member". He also reported the abuse to the WMF governance committee, to the Suport and Safety team and mentioned it to Christophe Henner and Katherine Maher on Twitter, to no avail. To this
day
we haven't received any support or acknowledgement whatsoever. All the while the sexist abuse continues, and French editor MrButler was
moderated
on the wikimediafr maling list for his continued personal attacks
against
me. This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Board's email to the
members
was calling out, yet you continue to deliberately ignore it and refuse
to
do anything about it.
Finally, your asking to be informed of any legal action against chapter members or staff is yet another example of the WMF taking sides while posing as a neutral arbitrator. Calling someone out on their toxic behaviour or actually filing a complaint are no legal threats or intimidation, but by claiming they are you are trying to silence victims
by
denying them their basic rights to legal protection. At least two complaints have been filed against community members and more may be coming, including on my behalf. You will not be informed because it is
not
for WMF to decide whether they are justified or frivolous.
For all these reasons I am deeply shocked and hurt by your payment conditions and will not abide by the terms of your grant expectations.
With
most of WMFr funding hanging in the balance your unilaterally revised conditions amount to blackmail but I will not stay in harm's way at the request of the organisation who has failed me in every aspect when I
came
in good faith to work for the community. I will resign when I see fit to protect my health, and continue to speak honestly and publicly about
your
actions and empty words of safety and inclusivity.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis, vice chair of WMFr _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Everyone,
The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take all harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My goal here today is to provide more information about the actions of the Wikimedia Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in which our movement finds itself.
As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the French Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies, and the Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a number of the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the French community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and concerned Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past months the Foundation has received formal and informal complaints alleging harassment and other harmful behaviour, and we have enforced existing policies whenever applicable.
Recently, an individual associated with our movement published an essay about the events in France on the blogging site Medium and shared that essay with this list. It contained a number of deeply concerning allegations of harassment. Let me first address the most troubling claims of the recent essay—those regarding the Foundation’s handling of allegations against the Wikimedia Foundation’s current Board Chair.
In May of 2017 the Wikimedia Foundation was informed, in a letter and for the first time, that the then-Executive Director of Wikimédia France was alleging claims of harassment against the current Board Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, dating back to his tenure as former Chair of Wikimédia France. In this letter the Executive Director described a number of interactions with the Foundation’s Board Chair when he was Chair of Wikimédia France, and went on to accuse him of using his position as Foundation Board Chair to to turn the Wikimedia Foundation’s sentiment against the French chapter.
Contrary to the assertion in the Medium essay, while the former Wikimédia France Executive Director’s letter detailed tense and disagreeable interactions between the two individuals, it did not characterize those interactions as sexual harassment. Also contrary to the essay’s assertions, the Wikimedia Foundation took immediate and appropriate action after receiving the complaint.
The Wikimedia Foundation, under clear direction from our Board, responded promptly:
- We notified the Vice Chair and Board Governance Chair immediately after receiving the then-Executive Director’s letter. - Under their direction and supervision, we promptly hired expert French legal counsel to conduct an investigation on this issue. - The Foundation Board Chair was informed of the investigation and recused from all relevant discussions. The Board Chair was also recused from any discussion regarding Wikimédia France and the French Wikimedia community, including any participation in funding decisions. - The investigation by the experts found that the French chapter’s Executive Director’s detailed statements of facts, in addition to not being characterized by her as sexual harassment, also did not support a finding of sexual harassment. - Based on the information provided, French counsel also looked at whether the allegations supported a finding of “moral” harassment, ultimately concluding that they did not. - The findings were conveyed to the then-chair of the board of Wikimédia France. The chapter leadership was asked on more than one occasion if it had any additional evidence or wished to further discuss the conclusions. No additional information was provided. - Under these circumstances, the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation found no merit to the charges.
*As has been repeatedly stated, the Foundation remains fully committed to reviewing and investigating additional information, if presented, of sexual or other harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation staff or board member. We fully condemn harassment in the Wikimedia movement.*
The essay in Medium also references experiences of a number of former Wikimédia France Board members who reportedly left their posts because of alleged harassment from French Wikimedia community members. In the majority of these cases, the Wikimedia Foundation has not received complaints and has no further information about these allegations.
We are aware that some people working at the Foundation for some months have received comments from a number of community members through informal channels about alleged intra-community harassment. These included complaints and allegations of harassment made against the former Wikimédia France Executive Director and then-Board Chair by Wikimédia France staff and community members, as well as counter-complaints from former Wikimédia France board members against members of the French community. In each instance of which we are aware, the individual raising the complaint was directed to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Support and Safety team, which is trained and equipped to independently investigate and assess these matters, particularly where members of the larger Wikimedia community are concerned.
In total, the Foundation received roughly a dozen of these complaints. Each of these complaints received by the Foundation was investigated and responded to promptly, enforcing the relevant anti-harassment policies whenever appropriate. In some cases, and when appropriate, our response resulted in content (for example, content that identified Wikimedia community members who guarded their anonymity) being removed from public websites or the Foundation contacting users who posted inappropriate material. In others, we found that while certain comments at times crossed the lines of civility, the actions did not meet the threshold of sanction under our policies or constitute intentional or sustained patterns of harassment.
As a cumulative result of these complaints, the Wikimedia Foundation has recommended to Wikimédia France that they take immediate steps to implement a friendly space policy. At the chapter’s exceptional September general assembly, the motion to develop and implement a friendly space policy passed with overwhelming support, with 98% of the membership voting in favor.[3] The Wikimedia Foundation has offered Wikimédia France our assistance with this policy’s composition and implementation.
We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as they work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are already cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As part of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will independently handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful, inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded. Many dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including current community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and staff members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months. Those outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and friends have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds with one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a renewed sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we all desire.
Situations such as the recent events in France provide us with an opportunity to learn from the past in order to do better in the future. We have seen this time and again in our communities, as organizations (including the Wikimedia Foundation) have emerged from governance and other challenges stronger, with deepened commitments to openness, collaboration, and humility.
Today is another such opportunity.
Katherine
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/
[2] http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2017/09/11/vers-une-sortie-de-crise-a-w...
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-nos-vies-connectees/20170718.OBS2...
[3] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/WMFR_AG_2017-09-09...
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Caroline Becker carobecker54@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Emeric,
I am very pleased that you take mental health seriously. I remember, not so long ago, that your actions while you were in Wikimedia France had serious impact on the mental health of at least two of your members.
In January, someone had a meltdown just in front of you. Could you remind us what you did after that ?
In April, you learnt that your actions as a chair caused me a medical leave. What can the Foundation and the movement as a whole learn about how you dealt with the situation ?
Warmly,
Caroline
2017-10-12 12:39 GMT+02:00 Emeric Vallespi emeric.vallespi@gmail.com:
Dear Maria, Dear all,
The Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees, the executive and the legal management of the Wikimedia Foundation have been informed of Nathalie Martin's complaint against her former employer now member of your board, and then of the criminal complaint against this same person (facts from
his
time in Wikimédia France and other from his time in your Board).
It would have been logical for a board of trustees member to gather her testimony. No one has sought to make contact with her. Why? At the very least, the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees could have requested a copy of the complaint, as well as the various testimonies, so that they could study them and make their opinion. We had no
solicitation.
Why? From what I see, the Wikimedia Foundation has done everything to stifle the problem. Here is the only initiative WMF has taken: paid "independent lawyers" (a concept unknown to me…) to "question Christophe". He
responded,
to the general surprise, that there was no problem. Do you really feel that this is a serious investigation? Honestly? Why did not these lawyers also hear Nathalie? Why did these lawyers not ask questions to the Wikimédia France Board of trustees members? Only with the testimony of the defendant himself, the Wikimedia Foundation today states that there is no problem. ... During the site visit, Nathalie proposed to the Wikimedia Foundation representatives to organize a confrontation. Not only did she have a flat denial, but, moreover, it was replied that it must not be addressed. Why did the Wikimedia Foundation not accede to this request for confrontation? Not to know the truth which can be too embarrassing to assume?
We have a movement employee who brilliantly held management responsibilities for 4 years (great longevity for an Executive Director…) who asked for help. And what is the answer of the movement, of the Wikimedia Foundation? Nothing. Nothing was undertaken to give her any
kind
of listening or help.
Marie-Alice Mathis, who courageously expressed disapproval of the sexist harassment of Nathalie, was also harassed by community members. Nathalie and Marie-Alice suffered health damages and had medical leaves issued by real general practitioners. The Wikimedia Foundation was informed and
what
did you do? Nothing, or worst: two messages from your staff legitimizing the harassment and one from a member of your board who publicly stated against Wikimédia France without any prior contact with us. What kind of help or support did you offer to Marie-Alice?
The outcome of the complaints is not even the issue at this stage and
this
is not my point (I’m not a judge as you or other community member think they are). The real problem is that today a man in the movement, if he has power position, can do absolutely everything he wants without any control. The problem is, despite all the empty values you’re communicating on, you legitimize whatever the community does. Because the community is the measure of all things. No objective process is foreseen to protect women (and more generally, people) or at least to hear them. Do you find this normal for a movement that advocates inclusiveness and respect?
I’ve read an ardent defender of epicene style of writing who is accusing of lying other women because of their private then public declarations. Having no clue of what is in the procedure. Thank you for enlightening me about true fight with feminism.
I’m glad that « We take all allegations of harassment seriously », but I can not endorse this functioning which goes against legality and simply against human values.
N.B: English is not my native language, may you be as tolerant of my selected words or sentences construction as with harassing behavior.
Thanks
for your understanding.
Regards,
Emeric Vallespi
On 11 Oct 2017, at 19:54, María Sefidari kewlshrink@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
We would like to specifically address the allegations related to
harassment
in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia
Foundation
Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation
employed
independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on
the
information presented, the investigation found no support for the allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation
Board
as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation
if
presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider
the
allegations to be without merit.
On behalf of the Board,
María Sefidari
El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" jeblad@gmail.com escribió:
When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions
to
them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the
users
are an invitation to fierce battles.
Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the
role
of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF, unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the problems, and move on.
No, I do not know any of the people involved.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < mariealice.gariel@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now
complete
and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and frustration of these past few months.
I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had
more
time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years
I
had
a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie
Martin
or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I
have
I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s
values.
Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign
based
on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of
all
the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with
them
closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
believed
everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF
sites,
email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised, questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve
been
told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist
rant
against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats
to
withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC
funding.
People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early
in
the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware
of
the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe
for
facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by
prominent
members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that
case,
right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter funds
for
personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French
justice
system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to
gratuitous
ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and
dictating
our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank you
very
much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses reimbursement“.
None
of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the goal of spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider community
has
clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position and
the
Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French media in
the
hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in the crisis.
I am also extremely disappointed that no one from this list asked us
(the
Board) what was happening when these allegations were made, with only
a
handful of people suggesting to wait before all the facts were known. Instead, you took for granted the very short and extremely biased
English
summaries of the Board’s communications (which were instantly
circulated
on
this list without our consent and in violation of our chapter’s
bylaws),
and joined in the chorus of outrage, condemnation and verbal abuse.
But worse to me than all this, I am actually terrified at how easily
the
Wikimedia community can turn on a person, with no regard whatsoever
for
decency or legality, when it has made up its mind about who has no
place
there. I have personally experienced what it means to disagree with
this
angry mob: questioning the dominant opinion or calling out
individuals’
toxic behaviour makes you in turn acceptable collateral damage and a
“fair
game” target for harassment.
Speaking of this, the movement as a whole needs to address the issue
of
staff-volunteers relations exemplified by the rapid turnover of
executive
staff across chapters. Nathalie stayed at WMFR an almost record
breaking 4
years, but at what cost? I’m being extremely serious in adding that
this
conversation needs to take place before something irreversible happens
as
a
result of harmful group behaviour within the community.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis // AlienSpoon
PS: for your information about my position regarding the WMF’s role in
this
crisis and their recent unilaterally added conditions [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_expectations_for_ Wikimedia_France_-_2017-2018] for payment of our FDC-attributed grant, I attach my email to Katy
Love
from Sept 20.
Katy, (Cc WMFr Board and Rémi)
In the WMF "Grant expectations" document sent to the Board of WMFr,
you
mention as a condition for APG funds payment that I do not resign from
my
position on the Board until the governance review is complete, and
that
any
Board member planning to resign must report and justify it to WMF.
You also mention that you retain the right to cease funding WMFr if
you
consider that legal threats are being used inappropriately to stifle
civil
and appropriate participation in the chapter. Moreover, you condition payment to being informed if the chapter leadership feels that legal
action
is appropriate to take against current or former board members or
staff.
Let me be clear: these conditions are outrageous and unacceptable.
First of all, my legitimacy as a Board member of WMFr does not come
from
any commitment to WMF but from being democratically elected by French chapter members. WMF has no say in who stays or not on the Board, and trying to intervene on such governance issues is, again, putting both organisations at risk of being legally recognised as co-employers.
Second, as a (volunteer) Board member I have been subjected to
harassment,
sexist abuse, and unjustified allegations of misconduct by community members, that have impacted my health and mental well being to the
point
where I was no longer able to do my (paid) job in cancer patient care
and
my GP put me on medical leave. A large volume of this abuse took place
on
WMF property (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro and the WMF-hosted, publicly archived mailing lists wikimedia-l and wikimediafr). You personally and on behalf of WMF encouraged French community
members
to
challenge chapter leadership citing governance issues, without a word mentioning the violence suffered by the Board and executive staff at
the
hands of some French members during this crisis. Worse, you presented
the
Board's email condemning the harassment as inaccurate and problematic, which made the community feel all the more legitimate in their harmful attacks. When I reported the abuse in person to WMF employees during the site
visit
you personally empathised with my distress at the time, and thanked me
for
being honest about how your email to the wikimediafr list had made our already precarious situation untenable. And then you did nothing. My husband Rémi, who witnessed first hand the effects of the
harassment
on
my health, called on you to release the site visit report so the
misconduct
allegations would stop. You didn't, until 3 days before our General Assembly (where the allegations were repeated), on the same day you
asked
that I stay on as a Board member. Even your choice of words in the
"Grant
expectations" document is telling: "egregious incivility" is not what
we
are talking about here. We are talking about unacceptable and illegal defamation and harassment with serious real life consequences. Rémi also called on the wikimedia-l list to stop the unfounded
allegations,
and was attacked in turn because of "his conflict of interest as the husband of a Board member". He also reported the abuse to the WMF governance committee, to the Suport and Safety team and mentioned it
to
Christophe Henner and Katherine Maher on Twitter, to no avail. To this
day
we haven't received any support or acknowledgement whatsoever. All the while the sexist abuse continues, and French editor MrButler was
moderated
on the wikimediafr maling list for his continued personal attacks
against
me. This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Board's email to the
members
was calling out, yet you continue to deliberately ignore it and refuse
to
do anything about it.
Finally, your asking to be informed of any legal action against
chapter
members or staff is yet another example of the WMF taking sides while posing as a neutral arbitrator. Calling someone out on their toxic behaviour or actually filing a complaint are no legal threats or intimidation, but by claiming they are you are trying to silence
victims
by
denying them their basic rights to legal protection. At least two complaints have been filed against community members and more may be coming, including on my behalf. You will not be informed because it is
not
for WMF to decide whether they are justified or frivolous.
For all these reasons I am deeply shocked and hurt by your payment conditions and will not abide by the terms of your grant expectations.
With
most of WMFr funding hanging in the balance your unilaterally revised conditions amount to blackmail but I will not stay in harm's way at
the
request of the organisation who has failed me in every aspect when I
came
in good faith to work for the community. I will resign when I see fit
to
protect my health, and continue to speak honestly and publicly about
your
actions and empty words of safety and inclusivity.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis, vice chair of WMFr _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks so much, Katherine, for this detailed report. I really appreciate this.
Patricio
El jue., 19 de oct. de 2017 a la(s) 18:20, Katherine Maher < kmaher@wikimedia.org> escribió:
Everyone,
The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take all harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My goal here today is to provide more information about the actions of the Wikimedia Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in which our movement finds itself.
As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the French Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies, and the Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a number of the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the French community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and concerned Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past months the Foundation has received formal and informal complaints alleging harassment and other harmful behaviour, and we have enforced existing policies whenever applicable.
Recently, an individual associated with our movement published an essay about the events in France on the blogging site Medium and shared that essay with this list. It contained a number of deeply concerning allegations of harassment. Let me first address the most troubling claims of the recent essay—those regarding the Foundation’s handling of allegations against the Wikimedia Foundation’s current Board Chair.
In May of 2017 the Wikimedia Foundation was informed, in a letter and for the first time, that the then-Executive Director of Wikimédia France was alleging claims of harassment against the current Board Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, dating back to his tenure as former Chair of Wikimédia France. In this letter the Executive Director described a number of interactions with the Foundation’s Board Chair when he was Chair of Wikimédia France, and went on to accuse him of using his position as Foundation Board Chair to to turn the Wikimedia Foundation’s sentiment against the French chapter.
Contrary to the assertion in the Medium essay, while the former Wikimédia France Executive Director’s letter detailed tense and disagreeable interactions between the two individuals, it did not characterize those interactions as sexual harassment. Also contrary to the essay’s assertions, the Wikimedia Foundation took immediate and appropriate action after receiving the complaint.
The Wikimedia Foundation, under clear direction from our Board, responded promptly:
- We notified the Vice Chair and Board Governance Chair immediately
after receiving the then-Executive Director’s letter.
- Under their direction and supervision, we promptly hired expert French
legal counsel to conduct an investigation on this issue.
- The Foundation Board Chair was informed of the investigation and
recused from all relevant discussions. The Board Chair was also recused from any discussion regarding Wikimédia France and the French Wikimedia community, including any participation in funding decisions.
- The investigation by the experts found that the French chapter’s
Executive Director’s detailed statements of facts, in addition to not being characterized by her as sexual harassment, also did not support a finding of sexual harassment.
- Based on the information provided, French counsel also looked at
whether the allegations supported a finding of “moral” harassment, ultimately concluding that they did not.
- The findings were conveyed to the then-chair of the board of Wikimédia
France. The chapter leadership was asked on more than one occasion if it had any additional evidence or wished to further discuss the conclusions. No additional information was provided.
- Under these circumstances, the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation found
no merit to the charges.
*As has been repeatedly stated, the Foundation remains fully committed to reviewing and investigating additional information, if presented, of sexual or other harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation staff or board member. We fully condemn harassment in the Wikimedia movement.*
The essay in Medium also references experiences of a number of former Wikimédia France Board members who reportedly left their posts because of alleged harassment from French Wikimedia community members. In the majority of these cases, the Wikimedia Foundation has not received complaints and has no further information about these allegations.
We are aware that some people working at the Foundation for some months have received comments from a number of community members through informal channels about alleged intra-community harassment. These included complaints and allegations of harassment made against the former Wikimédia France Executive Director and then-Board Chair by Wikimédia France staff and community members, as well as counter-complaints from former Wikimédia France board members against members of the French community. In each instance of which we are aware, the individual raising the complaint was directed to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Support and Safety team, which is trained and equipped to independently investigate and assess these matters, particularly where members of the larger Wikimedia community are concerned.
In total, the Foundation received roughly a dozen of these complaints. Each of these complaints received by the Foundation was investigated and responded to promptly, enforcing the relevant anti-harassment policies whenever appropriate. In some cases, and when appropriate, our response resulted in content (for example, content that identified Wikimedia community members who guarded their anonymity) being removed from public websites or the Foundation contacting users who posted inappropriate material. In others, we found that while certain comments at times crossed the lines of civility, the actions did not meet the threshold of sanction under our policies or constitute intentional or sustained patterns of harassment.
As a cumulative result of these complaints, the Wikimedia Foundation has recommended to Wikimédia France that they take immediate steps to implement a friendly space policy. At the chapter’s exceptional September general assembly, the motion to develop and implement a friendly space policy passed with overwhelming support, with 98% of the membership voting in favor.[3] The Wikimedia Foundation has offered Wikimédia France our assistance with this policy’s composition and implementation.
We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as they work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are already cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As part of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will independently handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful, inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded. Many dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including current community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and staff members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months. Those outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and friends have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds with one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a renewed sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we all desire.
Situations such as the recent events in France provide us with an opportunity to learn from the past in order to do better in the future. We have seen this time and again in our communities, as organizations (including the Wikimedia Foundation) have emerged from governance and other challenges stronger, with deepened commitments to openness, collaboration, and humility.
Today is another such opportunity.
Katherine
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/
[2]
http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2017/09/11/vers-une-sortie-de-crise-a-w...
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-nos-vies-connectees/20170718.OBS2...
[3]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/WMFR_AG_2017-09-09...
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Caroline Becker carobecker54@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Emeric,
I am very pleased that you take mental health seriously. I remember, not
so
long ago, that your actions while you were in Wikimedia France had
serious
impact on the mental health of at least two of your members.
In January, someone had a meltdown just in front of you. Could you remind us what you did after that ?
In April, you learnt that your actions as a chair caused me a medical leave. What can the Foundation and the movement as a whole learn about
how
you dealt with the situation ?
Warmly,
Caroline
2017-10-12 12:39 GMT+02:00 Emeric Vallespi emeric.vallespi@gmail.com:
Dear Maria, Dear all,
The Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees, the executive and the legal management of the Wikimedia Foundation have been informed of Nathalie Martin's complaint against her former employer now member of your
board,
and then of the criminal complaint against this same person (facts from
his
time in Wikimédia France and other from his time in your Board).
It would have been logical for a board of trustees member to gather her testimony. No one has sought to make contact with her. Why? At the very least, the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees could
have
requested a copy of the complaint, as well as the various testimonies,
so
that they could study them and make their opinion. We had no
solicitation.
Why? From what I see, the Wikimedia Foundation has done everything to stifle the problem. Here is the only initiative WMF has taken: paid
"independent
lawyers" (a concept unknown to me…) to "question Christophe". He
responded,
to the general surprise, that there was no problem. Do you really feel that this is a serious investigation? Honestly? Why did not these lawyers also hear Nathalie? Why did these lawyers not ask questions to the Wikimédia France Board
of
trustees members? Only with the testimony of the defendant himself, the Wikimedia Foundation today states that there is no problem. ... During the site visit, Nathalie proposed to the Wikimedia Foundation representatives to organize a confrontation. Not only did she have a
flat
denial, but, moreover, it was replied that it must not be addressed. Why did the Wikimedia Foundation not accede to this request for confrontation? Not to know the truth which can be too embarrassing to assume?
We have a movement employee who brilliantly held management responsibilities for 4 years (great longevity for an Executive
Director…)
who asked for help. And what is the answer of the movement, of the Wikimedia Foundation? Nothing. Nothing was undertaken to give her any
kind
of listening or help.
Marie-Alice Mathis, who courageously expressed disapproval of the
sexist
harassment of Nathalie, was also harassed by community members.
Nathalie
and Marie-Alice suffered health damages and had medical leaves issued
by
real general practitioners. The Wikimedia Foundation was informed and
what
did you do? Nothing, or worst: two messages from your staff
legitimizing
the harassment and one from a member of your board who publicly stated against Wikimédia France without any prior contact with us. What kind of help or support did you offer to Marie-Alice?
The outcome of the complaints is not even the issue at this stage and
this
is not my point (I’m not a judge as you or other community member think they are). The real problem is that today a man in the movement, if he has power position, can do absolutely everything he wants without any control.
The
problem is, despite all the empty values you’re communicating on, you legitimize whatever the community does. Because the community is the measure of all things. No objective process is foreseen to protect women (and more generally, people) or at least to hear them. Do you find this normal for a movement that advocates inclusiveness and respect?
I’ve read an ardent defender of epicene style of writing who is
accusing
of lying other women because of their private then public declarations. Having no clue of what is in the procedure. Thank you for enlightening
me
about true fight with feminism.
I’m glad that « We take all allegations of harassment seriously », but
I
can not endorse this functioning which goes against legality and simply against human values.
N.B: English is not my native language, may you be as tolerant of my selected words or sentences construction as with harassing behavior.
Thanks
for your understanding.
Regards,
Emeric Vallespi
On 11 Oct 2017, at 19:54, María Sefidari kewlshrink@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear all,
We would like to specifically address the allegations related to
harassment
in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of
harassment
seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia
Foundation
Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation
employed
independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based
on
the
information presented, the investigation found no support for the allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation
Board
as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent
investigation
if
presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider
the
allegations to be without merit.
On behalf of the Board,
María Sefidari
El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" jeblad@gmail.com escribió:
When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more
opinions
to
them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a
partly
anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the
users
are an invitation to fierce battles.
Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the
role
of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF, unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the problems, and move on.
No, I do not know any of the people involved.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < mariealice.gariel@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am
Marie-Alice
Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now
complete
and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and frustration of these past few months.
I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally
had
more
time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through
the
French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for
years
I
had
a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie
Martin
or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that
I
have
I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s
values.
Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because
I
defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign
based
on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of
all
the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked
with
them
closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
believed
everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF
sites,
email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised, questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve
been
told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist
rant
against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called
a
conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former
chair
Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats
to
withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC
funding.
People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board
early
in
the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now
call
themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly
aware
of
the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against
Christophe
for
facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by
prominent
members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that
case,
right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter
funds
for
personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French
justice
system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to
gratuitous
ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and
dictating
our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank you
very
much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses
reimbursement“.
None
of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the goal
of
spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider
community
has
clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position
and
the
Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French media
in
the
hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in the crisis.
I am also extremely disappointed that no one from this list asked us
(the
Board) what was happening when these allegations were made, with
only
a
handful of people suggesting to wait before all the facts were
known.
Instead, you took for granted the very short and extremely biased
English
summaries of the Board’s communications (which were instantly
circulated
on
this list without our consent and in violation of our chapter’s
bylaws),
and joined in the chorus of outrage, condemnation and verbal abuse.
But worse to me than all this, I am actually terrified at how easily
the
Wikimedia community can turn on a person, with no regard whatsoever
for
decency or legality, when it has made up its mind about who has no
place
there. I have personally experienced what it means to disagree with
this
angry mob: questioning the dominant opinion or calling out
individuals’
toxic behaviour makes you in turn acceptable collateral damage and a
“fair
game” target for harassment.
Speaking of this, the movement as a whole needs to address the issue
of
staff-volunteers relations exemplified by the rapid turnover of
executive
staff across chapters. Nathalie stayed at WMFR an almost record
breaking 4
years, but at what cost? I’m being extremely serious in adding that
this
conversation needs to take place before something irreversible
happens
as
a
result of harmful group behaviour within the community.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis // AlienSpoon
PS: for your information about my position regarding the WMF’s role
in
this
crisis and their recent unilaterally added conditions [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_expectations_for_ Wikimedia_France_-_2017-2018] for payment of our FDC-attributed grant, I attach my email to Katy
Love
from Sept 20.
Katy, (Cc WMFr Board and Rémi)
In the WMF "Grant expectations" document sent to the Board of WMFr,
you
mention as a condition for APG funds payment that I do not resign
from
my
position on the Board until the governance review is complete, and
that
any
Board member planning to resign must report and justify it to WMF.
You also mention that you retain the right to cease funding WMFr if
you
consider that legal threats are being used inappropriately to stifle
civil
and appropriate participation in the chapter. Moreover, you
condition
payment to being informed if the chapter leadership feels that legal
action
is appropriate to take against current or former board members or
staff.
Let me be clear: these conditions are outrageous and unacceptable.
First of all, my legitimacy as a Board member of WMFr does not come
from
any commitment to WMF but from being democratically elected by
French
chapter members. WMF has no say in who stays or not on the Board,
and
trying to intervene on such governance issues is, again, putting
both
organisations at risk of being legally recognised as co-employers.
Second, as a (volunteer) Board member I have been subjected to
harassment,
sexist abuse, and unjustified allegations of misconduct by community members, that have impacted my health and mental well being to the
point
where I was no longer able to do my (paid) job in cancer patient
care
and
my GP put me on medical leave. A large volume of this abuse took
place
on
WMF property (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro and the WMF-hosted, publicly archived mailing lists wikimedia-l and wikimediafr). You personally and on behalf of WMF encouraged French community
members
to
challenge chapter leadership citing governance issues, without a
word
mentioning the violence suffered by the Board and executive staff at
the
hands of some French members during this crisis. Worse, you
presented
the
Board's email condemning the harassment as inaccurate and
problematic,
which made the community feel all the more legitimate in their
harmful
attacks. When I reported the abuse in person to WMF employees during the site
visit
you personally empathised with my distress at the time, and thanked
me
for
being honest about how your email to the wikimediafr list had made
our
already precarious situation untenable. And then you did nothing. My husband Rémi, who witnessed first hand the effects of the
harassment
on
my health, called on you to release the site visit report so the
misconduct
allegations would stop. You didn't, until 3 days before our General Assembly (where the allegations were repeated), on the same day you
asked
that I stay on as a Board member. Even your choice of words in the
"Grant
expectations" document is telling: "egregious incivility" is not
what
we
are talking about here. We are talking about unacceptable and
illegal
defamation and harassment with serious real life consequences. Rémi also called on the wikimedia-l list to stop the unfounded
allegations,
and was attacked in turn because of "his conflict of interest as the husband of a Board member". He also reported the abuse to the WMF governance committee, to the Suport and Safety team and mentioned it
to
Christophe Henner and Katherine Maher on Twitter, to no avail. To
this
day
we haven't received any support or acknowledgement whatsoever. All
the
while the sexist abuse continues, and French editor MrButler was
moderated
on the wikimediafr maling list for his continued personal attacks
against
me. This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Board's email to the
members
was calling out, yet you continue to deliberately ignore it and
refuse
to
do anything about it.
Finally, your asking to be informed of any legal action against
chapter
members or staff is yet another example of the WMF taking sides
while
posing as a neutral arbitrator. Calling someone out on their toxic behaviour or actually filing a complaint are no legal threats or intimidation, but by claiming they are you are trying to silence
victims
by
denying them their basic rights to legal protection. At least two complaints have been filed against community members and more may be coming, including on my behalf. You will not be informed because it
is
not
for WMF to decide whether they are justified or frivolous.
For all these reasons I am deeply shocked and hurt by your payment conditions and will not abide by the terms of your grant
expectations.
With
most of WMFr funding hanging in the balance your unilaterally
revised
conditions amount to blackmail but I will not stay in harm's way at
the
request of the organisation who has failed me in every aspect when I
came
in good faith to work for the community. I will resign when I see
fit
to
protect my health, and continue to speak honestly and publicly about
your
actions and empty words of safety and inclusivity.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis, vice chair of WMFr _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Katherine Maher Executive Director
*We moved! **Our new address:*
Wikimedia Foundation 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 <(415)%20839-6885> +1 (415) 712 4873 <(415)%20712-4873> kmaher@wikimedia.org https://annual.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Katherine,
Your answer is particularly shocking. Which right has the Foundation to feel legitimate in order to describe the situation experienced by Nathalie Martin or by other people? Only a judge can. The movement organization does not take precedence over the laws of the countries.
You rely on a single document (a letter) to judge that there is no moral or sexual harassment? What about the criminal complaint? And the medical leaves? And the testimonies attached to the complaint? These other elements were not taken into account, why?
The Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation ridiculed himself in the press [0] when he said that he had discovered yesterday the reproaches that were addressed to him as well as the complaint. His lawyer even tried to make it appear that the complaint had never been filed. Even though this whole situation has been known by the Wikimedia Foundation for months!
Mockery reaches its top with your so-called measures. In case you do not know Katherine, in France independent lawyers do not exist. Judges are independent, not lawyers. The lawyers you have appointed have been paid by the Foundation. They *only* interviewed the defendant. In these conditions, how could the outcome not be favorable to his version?
You did not answer any of my previous questions:
Why did not the Wikimedia Foundation hear Nathalie Martin at her request? Just to have her version of the facts, it would have been - maybe ... - a good idea. Why did the experts who were supposed to conduct an adversarial investigation not discussed with Nathalie or Marie-Alice? Would not that have been the least of the things? Why did not they hear the board of trustees’ member? Why did you refuse to organize, as you (or your representatives) were offered, a confrontation between complainant/defendant? Why fear so much to hear the version of Nathalie?
You have witnessed what Marie-Alice and Nathalie have experienced with social media as well as on the mailing-list you're hosting. You've done absolutely nothing to protect them. You're mentioning complaints that have been filed to the Support and Safety committee, which has no legal existence in the real world (outside of the movement). I am talking about real criminal complaints in a police station. Whether you can compare the two shows your total unconsciousness.
Again, the role of the Wikimedia Foundation is not to determine whether the current Chair is guilty or innocent. Nor whether the acts are sexual or moral harassment. Your role, as an organization, is, to a minimum, to hear the victims and to ensure their protection. You have undertaken everything to mask this situation in order to guarantee your tranquility. It is a shame for a movement that wants to be humanistic.
Regards, -- Emeric Vallespi
2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org:
Everyone,
The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take all harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My goal here today is to provide more information about the actions of the Wikimedia Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in which our movement finds itself.
As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the French Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies, and the Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a number of the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the French community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and concerned Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past months the Foundation has received formal and informal complaints alleging harassment and other harmful behaviour, and we have enforced existing policies whenever applicable.
Recently, an individual associated with our movement published an essay about the events in France on the blogging site Medium and shared that essay with this list. It contained a number of deeply concerning allegations of harassment. Let me first address the most troubling claims of the recent essay—those regarding the Foundation’s handling of allegations against the Wikimedia Foundation’s current Board Chair.
In May of 2017 the Wikimedia Foundation was informed, in a letter and for the first time, that the then-Executive Director of Wikimédia France was alleging claims of harassment against the current Board Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, dating back to his tenure as former Chair of Wikimédia France. In this letter the Executive Director described a number of interactions with the Foundation’s Board Chair when he was Chair of Wikimédia France, and went on to accuse him of using his position as Foundation Board Chair to to turn the Wikimedia Foundation’s sentiment against the French chapter.
Contrary to the assertion in the Medium essay, while the former Wikimédia France Executive Director’s letter detailed tense and disagreeable interactions between the two individuals, it did not characterize those interactions as sexual harassment. Also contrary to the essay’s assertions, the Wikimedia Foundation took immediate and appropriate action after receiving the complaint.
The Wikimedia Foundation, under clear direction from our Board, responded promptly:
- We notified the Vice Chair and Board Governance Chair immediately
after receiving the then-Executive Director’s letter.
- Under their direction and supervision, we promptly hired expert French
legal counsel to conduct an investigation on this issue.
- The Foundation Board Chair was informed of the investigation and
recused from all relevant discussions. The Board Chair was also recused from any discussion regarding Wikimédia France and the French Wikimedia community, including any participation in funding decisions.
- The investigation by the experts found that the French chapter’s
Executive Director’s detailed statements of facts, in addition to not being characterized by her as sexual harassment, also did not support a finding of sexual harassment.
- Based on the information provided, French counsel also looked at
whether the allegations supported a finding of “moral” harassment, ultimately concluding that they did not.
- The findings were conveyed to the then-chair of the board of Wikimédia
France. The chapter leadership was asked on more than one occasion if it had any additional evidence or wished to further discuss the conclusions. No additional information was provided.
- Under these circumstances, the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation found
no merit to the charges.
*As has been repeatedly stated, the Foundation remains fully committed to reviewing and investigating additional information, if presented, of sexual or other harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation staff or board member. We fully condemn harassment in the Wikimedia movement.*
The essay in Medium also references experiences of a number of former Wikimédia France Board members who reportedly left their posts because of alleged harassment from French Wikimedia community members. In the majority of these cases, the Wikimedia Foundation has not received complaints and has no further information about these allegations.
We are aware that some people working at the Foundation for some months have received comments from a number of community members through informal channels about alleged intra-community harassment. These included complaints and allegations of harassment made against the former Wikimédia France Executive Director and then-Board Chair by Wikimédia France staff and community members, as well as counter-complaints from former Wikimédia France board members against members of the French community. In each instance of which we are aware, the individual raising the complaint was directed to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Support and Safety team, which is trained and equipped to independently investigate and assess these matters, particularly where members of the larger Wikimedia community are concerned.
In total, the Foundation received roughly a dozen of these complaints. Each of these complaints received by the Foundation was investigated and responded to promptly, enforcing the relevant anti-harassment policies whenever appropriate. In some cases, and when appropriate, our response resulted in content (for example, content that identified Wikimedia community members who guarded their anonymity) being removed from public websites or the Foundation contacting users who posted inappropriate material. In others, we found that while certain comments at times crossed the lines of civility, the actions did not meet the threshold of sanction under our policies or constitute intentional or sustained patterns of harassment.
As a cumulative result of these complaints, the Wikimedia Foundation has recommended to Wikimédia France that they take immediate steps to implement a friendly space policy. At the chapter’s exceptional September general assembly, the motion to develop and implement a friendly space policy passed with overwhelming support, with 98% of the membership voting in favor.[3] The Wikimedia Foundation has offered Wikimédia France our assistance with this policy’s composition and implementation.
We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as they work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are already cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As part of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will independently handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful, inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded. Many dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including current community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and staff members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months. Those outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and friends have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds with one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a renewed sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we all desire.
Situations such as the recent events in France provide us with an opportunity to learn from the past in order to do better in the future. We have seen this time and again in our communities, as organizations (including the Wikimedia Foundation) have emerged from governance and other challenges stronger, with deepened commitments to openness, collaboration, and humility.
Today is another such opportunity.
Katherine
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/
[2] http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2017/09/11/vers-une- sortie-de-crise-a-wikimedia-france_5184101_4408996.html
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-nos-vies- connectees/20170718.OBS2248/exclusions-menaces-budget- recale-c-est-la-crise-chez-wikimedia-france.html
[3] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/ WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf/page1-2550px-WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf.jpg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Caroline Becker carobecker54@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Emeric,
I am very pleased that you take mental health seriously. I remember, not
so
long ago, that your actions while you were in Wikimedia France had
serious
impact on the mental health of at least two of your members.
In January, someone had a meltdown just in front of you. Could you remind us what you did after that ?
In April, you learnt that your actions as a chair caused me a medical leave. What can the Foundation and the movement as a whole learn about
how
you dealt with the situation ?
Warmly,
Caroline
2017-10-12 12:39 GMT+02:00 Emeric Vallespi emeric.vallespi@gmail.com:
Dear Maria, Dear all,
The Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees, the executive and the legal management of the Wikimedia Foundation have been informed of Nathalie Martin's complaint against her former employer now member of your
board,
and then of the criminal complaint against this same person (facts from
his
time in Wikimédia France and other from his time in your Board).
It would have been logical for a board of trustees member to gather her testimony. No one has sought to make contact with her. Why? At the very least, the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees could
have
requested a copy of the complaint, as well as the various testimonies,
so
that they could study them and make their opinion. We had no
solicitation.
Why? From what I see, the Wikimedia Foundation has done everything to stifle the problem. Here is the only initiative WMF has taken: paid
"independent
lawyers" (a concept unknown to me…) to "question Christophe". He
responded,
to the general surprise, that there was no problem. Do you really feel that this is a serious investigation? Honestly? Why did not these lawyers also hear Nathalie? Why did these lawyers not ask questions to the Wikimédia France Board
of
trustees members? Only with the testimony of the defendant himself, the Wikimedia Foundation today states that there is no problem. ... During the site visit, Nathalie proposed to the Wikimedia Foundation representatives to organize a confrontation. Not only did she have a
flat
denial, but, moreover, it was replied that it must not be addressed. Why did the Wikimedia Foundation not accede to this request for confrontation? Not to know the truth which can be too embarrassing to assume?
We have a movement employee who brilliantly held management responsibilities for 4 years (great longevity for an Executive
Director…)
who asked for help. And what is the answer of the movement, of the Wikimedia Foundation? Nothing. Nothing was undertaken to give her any
kind
of listening or help.
Marie-Alice Mathis, who courageously expressed disapproval of the
sexist
harassment of Nathalie, was also harassed by community members.
Nathalie
and Marie-Alice suffered health damages and had medical leaves issued
by
real general practitioners. The Wikimedia Foundation was informed and
what
did you do? Nothing, or worst: two messages from your staff
legitimizing
the harassment and one from a member of your board who publicly stated against Wikimédia France without any prior contact with us. What kind of help or support did you offer to Marie-Alice?
The outcome of the complaints is not even the issue at this stage and
this
is not my point (I’m not a judge as you or other community member think they are). The real problem is that today a man in the movement, if he has power position, can do absolutely everything he wants without any control.
The
problem is, despite all the empty values you’re communicating on, you legitimize whatever the community does. Because the community is the measure of all things. No objective process is foreseen to protect women (and more generally, people) or at least to hear them. Do you find this normal for a movement that advocates inclusiveness and respect?
I’ve read an ardent defender of epicene style of writing who is
accusing
of lying other women because of their private then public declarations. Having no clue of what is in the procedure. Thank you for enlightening
me
about true fight with feminism.
I’m glad that « We take all allegations of harassment seriously », but
I
can not endorse this functioning which goes against legality and simply against human values.
N.B: English is not my native language, may you be as tolerant of my selected words or sentences construction as with harassing behavior.
Thanks
for your understanding.
Regards,
Emeric Vallespi
On 11 Oct 2017, at 19:54, María Sefidari kewlshrink@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear all,
We would like to specifically address the allegations related to
harassment
in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of
harassment
seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia
Foundation
Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation
employed
independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based
on
the
information presented, the investigation found no support for the allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation
Board
as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent
investigation
if
presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider
the
allegations to be without merit.
On behalf of the Board,
María Sefidari
El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" jeblad@gmail.com escribió:
When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more
opinions
to
them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a
partly
anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the
users
are an invitation to fierce battles.
Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the
role
of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF, unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the problems, and move on.
No, I do not know any of the people involved.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < mariealice.gariel@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am
Marie-Alice
Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now
complete
and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and frustration of these past few months.
I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally
had
more
time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through
the
French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for
years
I
had
a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie
Martin
or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that
I
have
I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s
values.
Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because
I
defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign
based
on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of
all
the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked
with
them
closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
believed
everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF
sites,
email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised, questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve
been
told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist
rant
against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called
a
conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former
chair
Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats
to
withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC
funding.
People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board
early
in
the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now
call
themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly
aware
of
the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against
Christophe
for
facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by
prominent
members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that
case,
right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter
funds
for
personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French
justice
system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to
gratuitous
ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and
dictating
our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank you
very
much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses
reimbursement“.
None
of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the goal
of
spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider
community
has
clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position
and
the
Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French media
in
the
hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in the crisis.
I am also extremely disappointed that no one from this list asked us
(the
Board) what was happening when these allegations were made, with
only
a
handful of people suggesting to wait before all the facts were
known.
Instead, you took for granted the very short and extremely biased
English
summaries of the Board’s communications (which were instantly
circulated
on
this list without our consent and in violation of our chapter’s
bylaws),
and joined in the chorus of outrage, condemnation and verbal abuse.
But worse to me than all this, I am actually terrified at how easily
the
Wikimedia community can turn on a person, with no regard whatsoever
for
decency or legality, when it has made up its mind about who has no
place
there. I have personally experienced what it means to disagree with
this
angry mob: questioning the dominant opinion or calling out
individuals’
toxic behaviour makes you in turn acceptable collateral damage and a
“fair
game” target for harassment.
Speaking of this, the movement as a whole needs to address the issue
of
staff-volunteers relations exemplified by the rapid turnover of
executive
staff across chapters. Nathalie stayed at WMFR an almost record
breaking 4
years, but at what cost? I’m being extremely serious in adding that
this
conversation needs to take place before something irreversible
happens
as
a
result of harmful group behaviour within the community.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis // AlienSpoon
PS: for your information about my position regarding the WMF’s role
in
this
crisis and their recent unilaterally added conditions [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_expectations_for_ Wikimedia_France_-_2017-2018] for payment of our FDC-attributed grant, I attach my email to Katy
Love
from Sept 20.
Katy, (Cc WMFr Board and Rémi)
In the WMF "Grant expectations" document sent to the Board of WMFr,
you
mention as a condition for APG funds payment that I do not resign
from
my
position on the Board until the governance review is complete, and
that
any
Board member planning to resign must report and justify it to WMF.
You also mention that you retain the right to cease funding WMFr if
you
consider that legal threats are being used inappropriately to stifle
civil
and appropriate participation in the chapter. Moreover, you
condition
payment to being informed if the chapter leadership feels that legal
action
is appropriate to take against current or former board members or
staff.
Let me be clear: these conditions are outrageous and unacceptable.
First of all, my legitimacy as a Board member of WMFr does not come
from
any commitment to WMF but from being democratically elected by
French
chapter members. WMF has no say in who stays or not on the Board,
and
trying to intervene on such governance issues is, again, putting
both
organisations at risk of being legally recognised as co-employers.
Second, as a (volunteer) Board member I have been subjected to
harassment,
sexist abuse, and unjustified allegations of misconduct by community members, that have impacted my health and mental well being to the
point
where I was no longer able to do my (paid) job in cancer patient
care
and
my GP put me on medical leave. A large volume of this abuse took
place
on
WMF property (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro and the WMF-hosted, publicly archived mailing lists wikimedia-l and wikimediafr). You personally and on behalf of WMF encouraged French community
members
to
challenge chapter leadership citing governance issues, without a
word
mentioning the violence suffered by the Board and executive staff at
the
hands of some French members during this crisis. Worse, you
presented
the
Board's email condemning the harassment as inaccurate and
problematic,
which made the community feel all the more legitimate in their
harmful
attacks. When I reported the abuse in person to WMF employees during the site
visit
you personally empathised with my distress at the time, and thanked
me
for
being honest about how your email to the wikimediafr list had made
our
already precarious situation untenable. And then you did nothing. My husband Rémi, who witnessed first hand the effects of the
harassment
on
my health, called on you to release the site visit report so the
misconduct
allegations would stop. You didn't, until 3 days before our General Assembly (where the allegations were repeated), on the same day you
asked
that I stay on as a Board member. Even your choice of words in the
"Grant
expectations" document is telling: "egregious incivility" is not
what
we
are talking about here. We are talking about unacceptable and
illegal
defamation and harassment with serious real life consequences. Rémi also called on the wikimedia-l list to stop the unfounded
allegations,
and was attacked in turn because of "his conflict of interest as the husband of a Board member". He also reported the abuse to the WMF governance committee, to the Suport and Safety team and mentioned it
to
Christophe Henner and Katherine Maher on Twitter, to no avail. To
this
day
we haven't received any support or acknowledgement whatsoever. All
the
while the sexist abuse continues, and French editor MrButler was
moderated
on the wikimediafr maling list for his continued personal attacks
against
me. This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Board's email to the
members
was calling out, yet you continue to deliberately ignore it and
refuse
to
do anything about it.
Finally, your asking to be informed of any legal action against
chapter
members or staff is yet another example of the WMF taking sides
while
posing as a neutral arbitrator. Calling someone out on their toxic behaviour or actually filing a complaint are no legal threats or intimidation, but by claiming they are you are trying to silence
victims
by
denying them their basic rights to legal protection. At least two complaints have been filed against community members and more may be coming, including on my behalf. You will not be informed because it
is
not
for WMF to decide whether they are justified or frivolous.
For all these reasons I am deeply shocked and hurt by your payment conditions and will not abide by the terms of your grant
expectations.
With
most of WMFr funding hanging in the balance your unilaterally
revised
conditions amount to blackmail but I will not stay in harm's way at
the
request of the organisation who has failed me in every aspect when I
came
in good faith to work for the community. I will resign when I see
fit
to
protect my health, and continue to speak honestly and publicly about
your
actions and empty words of safety and inclusivity.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis, vice chair of WMFr _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Katherine Maher Executive Director
*We moved! **Our new address:*
Wikimedia Foundation 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher@wikimedia.org https://annual.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Emeric VALLESPI <emeric.vallespi@gmail.com
wrote:
Katherine,
[...]
The lawyers you have appointed have been paid by the Foundation. They *only* interviewed the defendant.
Is this true? Because if what Emeric and Remi say is in fact true, it seems inappropriate to characterise what happened as an "investigation". An investigation listens to both sides.
If lawyers hear from one side only, that's called "seeking legal advice". In other words, "We consulted a lawyer, and they advised us that the allegations would not stand up in court."
More clarity on this would be appreciated. So, whom did, and didn't, the expert French legal counsel appointed by the WMF interview?
Andreas
In these conditions, how could the outcome not be favorable to his version?
You did not answer any of my previous questions:
Why did not the Wikimedia Foundation hear Nathalie Martin at her request? Just to have her version of the facts, it would have been - maybe ... - a good idea. Why did the experts who were supposed to conduct an adversarial investigation not discussed with Nathalie or Marie-Alice? Would not that have been the least of the things? Why did not they hear the board of trustees’ member? Why did you refuse to organize, as you (or your representatives) were offered, a confrontation between complainant/defendant? Why fear so much to hear the version of Nathalie?
You have witnessed what Marie-Alice and Nathalie have experienced with social media as well as on the mailing-list you're hosting. You've done absolutely nothing to protect them. You're mentioning complaints that have been filed to the Support and Safety committee, which has no legal existence in the real world (outside of the movement). I am talking about real criminal complaints in a police station. Whether you can compare the two shows your total unconsciousness.
Again, the role of the Wikimedia Foundation is not to determine whether the current Chair is guilty or innocent. Nor whether the acts are sexual or moral harassment. Your role, as an organization, is, to a minimum, to hear the victims and to ensure their protection. You have undertaken everything to mask this situation in order to guarantee your tranquility. It is a shame for a movement that wants to be humanistic.
Regards,
Emeric Vallespi
2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org:
Everyone,
The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take all harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My goal
here
today is to provide more information about the actions of the Wikimedia Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in which our movement finds itself.
As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the
French
Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies, and
the
Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a number
of
the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the French community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and concerned Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past months the Foundation has received formal and informal complaints alleging
harassment
and other harmful behaviour, and we have enforced existing policies whenever applicable.
Recently, an individual associated with our movement published an essay about the events in France on the blogging site Medium and shared that essay with this list. It contained a number of deeply concerning allegations of harassment. Let me first address the most troubling claims of the recent essay—those regarding the Foundation’s handling of allegations against the Wikimedia Foundation’s current Board Chair.
In May of 2017 the Wikimedia Foundation was informed, in a letter and for the first time, that the then-Executive Director of Wikimédia France was alleging claims of harassment against the current Board Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, dating back to his tenure as former Chair of Wikimédia France. In this letter the Executive Director described a
number
of interactions with the Foundation’s Board Chair when he was Chair of Wikimédia France, and went on to accuse him of using his position as Foundation Board Chair to to turn the Wikimedia Foundation’s sentiment against the French chapter.
Contrary to the assertion in the Medium essay, while the former Wikimédia France Executive Director’s letter detailed tense and disagreeable interactions between the two individuals, it did not characterize those interactions as sexual harassment. Also contrary to the essay’s
assertions,
the Wikimedia Foundation took immediate and appropriate action after receiving the complaint.
The Wikimedia Foundation, under clear direction from our Board, responded promptly:
- We notified the Vice Chair and Board Governance Chair immediately
after receiving the then-Executive Director’s letter.
- Under their direction and supervision, we promptly hired expert
French
legal counsel to conduct an investigation on this issue.
- The Foundation Board Chair was informed of the investigation and
recused from all relevant discussions. The Board Chair was also
recused
from any discussion regarding Wikimédia France and the French
Wikimedia
community, including any participation in funding decisions.
- The investigation by the experts found that the French chapter’s
Executive Director’s detailed statements of facts, in addition to not being characterized by her as sexual harassment, also did not support a finding of sexual harassment.
- Based on the information provided, French counsel also looked at
whether the allegations supported a finding of “moral” harassment, ultimately concluding that they did not.
- The findings were conveyed to the then-chair of the board of
Wikimédia
France. The chapter leadership was asked on more than one occasion if
it
had any additional evidence or wished to further discuss the conclusions. No additional information was provided.
- Under these circumstances, the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation
found
no merit to the charges.
*As has been repeatedly stated, the Foundation remains fully committed to reviewing and investigating additional information, if presented, of
sexual
or other harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation staff or board member. We fully condemn harassment in the Wikimedia movement.*
The essay in Medium also references experiences of a number of former Wikimédia France Board members who reportedly left their posts because of alleged harassment from French Wikimedia community members. In the
majority
of these cases, the Wikimedia Foundation has not received complaints and has no further information about these allegations.
We are aware that some people working at the Foundation for some months have received comments from a number of community members through
informal
channels about alleged intra-community harassment. These included complaints and allegations of harassment made against the former
Wikimédia
France Executive Director and then-Board Chair by Wikimédia France staff and community members, as well as counter-complaints from former
Wikimédia
France board members against members of the French community. In each instance of which we are aware, the individual raising the complaint was directed to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Support and Safety team, which is trained and equipped to independently investigate and assess these
matters,
particularly where members of the larger Wikimedia community are
concerned.
In total, the Foundation received roughly a dozen of these complaints.
Each
of these complaints received by the Foundation was investigated and responded to promptly, enforcing the relevant anti-harassment policies whenever appropriate. In some cases, and when appropriate, our response resulted in content (for example, content that identified Wikimedia community members who guarded their anonymity) being removed from public websites or the Foundation contacting users who posted inappropriate material. In others, we found that while certain comments at times
crossed
the lines of civility, the actions did not meet the threshold of sanction under our policies or constitute intentional or sustained patterns of harassment.
As a cumulative result of these complaints, the Wikimedia Foundation has recommended to Wikimédia France that they take immediate steps to
implement
a friendly space policy. At the chapter’s exceptional September general assembly, the motion to develop and implement a friendly space policy passed with overwhelming support, with 98% of the membership voting in favor.[3] The Wikimedia Foundation has offered Wikimédia France our assistance with this policy’s composition and implementation.
We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as
they
work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are
already
cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As
part
of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will
independently
handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful, inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded.
Many
dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including current community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and staff members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months. Those outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and
friends
have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds with one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a renewed sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we all desire.
Situations such as the recent events in France provide us with an opportunity to learn from the past in order to do better in the future.
We
have seen this time and again in our communities, as organizations (including the Wikimedia Foundation) have emerged from governance and
other
challenges stronger, with deepened commitments to openness,
collaboration,
and humility.
Today is another such opportunity.
Katherine
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/
[2] http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2017/09/11/vers-une- sortie-de-crise-a-wikimedia-france_5184101_4408996.html
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-nos-vies- connectees/20170718.OBS2248/exclusions-menaces-budget- recale-c-est-la-crise-chez-wikimedia-france.html
[3] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/ WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf/page1-2550px-WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf.jpg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Caroline Becker <
carobecker54@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Emeric,
I am very pleased that you take mental health seriously. I remember,
not
so
long ago, that your actions while you were in Wikimedia France had
serious
impact on the mental health of at least two of your members.
In January, someone had a meltdown just in front of you. Could you
remind
us what you did after that ?
In April, you learnt that your actions as a chair caused me a medical leave. What can the Foundation and the movement as a whole learn about
how
you dealt with the situation ?
Warmly,
Caroline
2017-10-12 12:39 GMT+02:00 Emeric Vallespi <emeric.vallespi@gmail.com
:
Dear Maria, Dear all,
The Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees, the executive and the
legal
management of the Wikimedia Foundation have been informed of Nathalie Martin's complaint against her former employer now member of your
board,
and then of the criminal complaint against this same person (facts
from
his
time in Wikimédia France and other from his time in your Board).
It would have been logical for a board of trustees member to gather
her
testimony. No one has sought to make contact with her. Why? At the very least, the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees could
have
requested a copy of the complaint, as well as the various
testimonies,
so
that they could study them and make their opinion. We had no
solicitation.
Why? From what I see, the Wikimedia Foundation has done everything to
stifle
the problem. Here is the only initiative WMF has taken: paid
"independent
lawyers" (a concept unknown to me…) to "question Christophe". He
responded,
to the general surprise, that there was no problem. Do you really feel that this is a serious investigation? Honestly? Why did not these lawyers also hear Nathalie? Why did these lawyers not ask questions to the Wikimédia France Board
of
trustees members? Only with the testimony of the defendant himself,
the
Wikimedia Foundation today states that there is no problem. ... During the site visit, Nathalie proposed to the Wikimedia Foundation representatives to organize a confrontation. Not only did she have a
flat
denial, but, moreover, it was replied that it must not be addressed. Why did the Wikimedia Foundation not accede to this request for confrontation? Not to know the truth which can be too embarrassing to assume?
We have a movement employee who brilliantly held management responsibilities for 4 years (great longevity for an Executive
Director…)
who asked for help. And what is the answer of the movement, of the Wikimedia Foundation? Nothing. Nothing was undertaken to give her any
kind
of listening or help.
Marie-Alice Mathis, who courageously expressed disapproval of the
sexist
harassment of Nathalie, was also harassed by community members.
Nathalie
and Marie-Alice suffered health damages and had medical leaves issued
by
real general practitioners. The Wikimedia Foundation was informed and
what
did you do? Nothing, or worst: two messages from your staff
legitimizing
the harassment and one from a member of your board who publicly
stated
against Wikimédia France without any prior contact with us. What kind of help or support did you offer to Marie-Alice?
The outcome of the complaints is not even the issue at this stage and
this
is not my point (I’m not a judge as you or other community member
think
they are). The real problem is that today a man in the movement, if he has power position, can do absolutely everything he wants without any control.
The
problem is, despite all the empty values you’re communicating on, you legitimize whatever the community does. Because the community is the measure of all things. No objective process is foreseen to protect women (and more
generally,
people) or at least to hear them. Do you find this normal for a movement that advocates inclusiveness
and
respect?
I’ve read an ardent defender of epicene style of writing who is
accusing
of lying other women because of their private then public
declarations.
Having no clue of what is in the procedure. Thank you for
enlightening
me
about true fight with feminism.
I’m glad that « We take all allegations of harassment seriously »,
but
I
can not endorse this functioning which goes against legality and
simply
against human values.
N.B: English is not my native language, may you be as tolerant of my selected words or sentences construction as with harassing behavior.
Thanks
for your understanding.
Regards,
Emeric Vallespi
On 11 Oct 2017, at 19:54, María Sefidari kewlshrink@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear all,
We would like to specifically address the allegations related to
harassment
in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of
harassment
seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed
that
allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia
Foundation
Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France.
We
immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation
employed
independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based
on
the
information presented, the investigation found no support for the allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia
Foundation
Board
as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent
investigation
if
presented with new information. Absent such information, we
consider
the
allegations to be without merit.
On behalf of the Board,
María Sefidari
El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" jeblad@gmail.com
escribió:
When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more
opinions
to
them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a
partly
anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the
users
are an invitation to fierce battles.
Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating
the
role
of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for
WMF,
unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the problems, and move on.
No, I do not know any of the people involved.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < mariealice.gariel@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am
Marie-Alice
Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now
complete
and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion
and
frustration of these past few months.
I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally
had
more
time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through
the
French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for
years
I
had
a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED
Nathalie
Martin
or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now
that
I
have
I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s
values.
Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends
because
I
defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear
campaign
based
on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause
of
all
the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked
with
them
closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
believed
everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF
sites,
email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word
scrutinised,
questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying.
I’ve
been
told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly
sexist
rant
against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been
called
a
conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former
chair
Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the
threats
to
withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC
funding.
People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board
early
in
the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now
call
themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly
aware
of
the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against
Christophe
for
facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by
prominent
members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in
that
case,
right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter
funds
for
personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French
justice
system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to
gratuitous
ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and
dictating
our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank
you
very
much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses
reimbursement“.
None
of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the
goal
of
spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider
community
has
clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position
and
the
Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French
media
in
the
hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in
the
crisis.
I am also extremely disappointed that no one from this list asked
us
(the
Board) what was happening when these allegations were made, with
only
a
handful of people suggesting to wait before all the facts were
known.
Instead, you took for granted the very short and extremely biased
English
summaries of the Board’s communications (which were instantly
circulated
on
this list without our consent and in violation of our chapter’s
bylaws),
and joined in the chorus of outrage, condemnation and verbal
abuse.
But worse to me than all this, I am actually terrified at how
easily
the
Wikimedia community can turn on a person, with no regard
whatsoever
for
decency or legality, when it has made up its mind about who has no
place
there. I have personally experienced what it means to disagree
with
this
angry mob: questioning the dominant opinion or calling out
individuals’
toxic behaviour makes you in turn acceptable collateral damage
and a
“fair
game” target for harassment.
Speaking of this, the movement as a whole needs to address the
issue
of
staff-volunteers relations exemplified by the rapid turnover of
executive
staff across chapters. Nathalie stayed at WMFR an almost record
breaking 4
years, but at what cost? I’m being extremely serious in adding
that
this
conversation needs to take place before something irreversible
happens
as
a
result of harmful group behaviour within the community.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis // AlienSpoon
PS: for your information about my position regarding the WMF’s
role
in
this
crisis and their recent unilaterally added conditions [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_expectations_for_ Wikimedia_France_-_2017-2018] for payment of our FDC-attributed grant, I attach my email to Katy
Love
from Sept 20.
Katy, (Cc WMFr Board and Rémi)
In the WMF "Grant expectations" document sent to the Board of
WMFr,
you
mention as a condition for APG funds payment that I do not resign
from
my
position on the Board until the governance review is complete, and
that
any
Board member planning to resign must report and justify it to WMF.
You also mention that you retain the right to cease funding WMFr
if
you
consider that legal threats are being used inappropriately to
stifle
civil
and appropriate participation in the chapter. Moreover, you
condition
payment to being informed if the chapter leadership feels that
legal
action
is appropriate to take against current or former board members or
staff.
Let me be clear: these conditions are outrageous and unacceptable.
First of all, my legitimacy as a Board member of WMFr does not
come
from
any commitment to WMF but from being democratically elected by
French
chapter members. WMF has no say in who stays or not on the Board,
and
trying to intervene on such governance issues is, again, putting
both
organisations at risk of being legally recognised as co-employers.
Second, as a (volunteer) Board member I have been subjected to
harassment,
sexist abuse, and unjustified allegations of misconduct by
community
members, that have impacted my health and mental well being to the
point
where I was no longer able to do my (paid) job in cancer patient
care
and
my GP put me on medical leave. A large volume of this abuse took
place
on
WMF property (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro and the WMF-hosted, publicly archived mailing lists wikimedia-l and wikimediafr). You personally and on behalf of WMF encouraged French community
members
to
challenge chapter leadership citing governance issues, without a
word
mentioning the violence suffered by the Board and executive staff
at
the
hands of some French members during this crisis. Worse, you
presented
the
Board's email condemning the harassment as inaccurate and
problematic,
which made the community feel all the more legitimate in their
harmful
attacks. When I reported the abuse in person to WMF employees during the
site
visit
you personally empathised with my distress at the time, and
thanked
me
for
being honest about how your email to the wikimediafr list had made
our
already precarious situation untenable. And then you did nothing. My husband Rémi, who witnessed first hand the effects of the
harassment
on
my health, called on you to release the site visit report so the
misconduct
allegations would stop. You didn't, until 3 days before our
General
Assembly (where the allegations were repeated), on the same day
you
asked
that I stay on as a Board member. Even your choice of words in the
"Grant
expectations" document is telling: "egregious incivility" is not
what
we
are talking about here. We are talking about unacceptable and
illegal
defamation and harassment with serious real life consequences. Rémi also called on the wikimedia-l list to stop the unfounded
allegations,
and was attacked in turn because of "his conflict of interest as
the
husband of a Board member". He also reported the abuse to the WMF governance committee, to the Suport and Safety team and mentioned
it
to
Christophe Henner and Katherine Maher on Twitter, to no avail. To
this
day
we haven't received any support or acknowledgement whatsoever. All
the
while the sexist abuse continues, and French editor MrButler was
moderated
on the wikimediafr maling list for his continued personal attacks
against
me. This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Board's email to the
members
was calling out, yet you continue to deliberately ignore it and
refuse
to
do anything about it.
Finally, your asking to be informed of any legal action against
chapter
members or staff is yet another example of the WMF taking sides
while
posing as a neutral arbitrator. Calling someone out on their toxic behaviour or actually filing a complaint are no legal threats or intimidation, but by claiming they are you are trying to silence
victims
by
denying them their basic rights to legal protection. At least two complaints have been filed against community members and more may
be
coming, including on my behalf. You will not be informed because
it
is
not
for WMF to decide whether they are justified or frivolous.
For all these reasons I am deeply shocked and hurt by your payment conditions and will not abide by the terms of your grant
expectations.
With
most of WMFr funding hanging in the balance your unilaterally
revised
conditions amount to blackmail but I will not stay in harm's way
at
the
request of the organisation who has failed me in every aspect
when I
came
in good faith to work for the community. I will resign when I see
fit
to
protect my health, and continue to speak honestly and publicly
about
your
actions and empty words of safety and inclusivity.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis, vice chair of WMFr _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Katherine Maher Executive Director
*We moved! **Our new address:*
Wikimedia Foundation 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher@wikimedia.org https://annual.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Katherine,
I told you a month ago "Maybe you should reply as a responsible human being and not as a trained crisis communication people". This is truer everyday.
What did you write this email yesterday, and not one,two, three months ago? Because I left Wikimedia France, because a Fields Medallist left, because the president of Picasso Museum left, and because journalists began to talk about the harassment and the violence of some members of the community. Because the fact that Nathalie Martin had filed a complaint against Christophe Henner begins to spread not only amongst the community but also outside. Because the articles made people aware of the problem and that they are victims too, and new testimonies are being sent to journalists. Because you met Christophe Henner in person the day before.
Because you are doing your job to protect your boss and make as little noise as possible. But when I donate to Wikimedia, when I edit Wikipedia, that's not what I want from you. I want a safe community.
I wrote to you, Christophe and your team more than ten times between July and today. I even met your Legal Conselor and Christophe Henner to talk about the harassment. I never got an email back from you. Not a single word to a private message I sent. You only answered once on Twitter, because it was a public conversation.
Now, I'm for you "an individual", you never only *say my name*. At the same time, I receive a letter from Henner's lawyer trying to make me remove my post. Still keeping people quiet instead of accepting and therefore tackling the problems.
I spent nine years working for the movement as a benevolent member. I have been chair for 3 years, I worked 9-12pm for the movement for years, I was threatened by the French Intelligence Service. And thanks to this dedication, I made a lot of friends ; I met a lot of extraordinay people ; we contracted with the Bibliothèque nationale, Versailles Palace, Ministries, etc. We made a huge and very good job.
Now, do you really think I'm leaving with no reason? Do you really think I'm a liar or frivolous? Do you think I'm being manipulated by an evil witch we had to get rid of - as some say to journalists and some add (with neutrality of course) to the Wikipedia article about me?
Denouncing the violence, I'm losing 30 of my closest friends, stopping one of my favouriste activities and canceling 9 years of my life.
Sending an email like this one, "managing" instead of "caring", you only do the job you're getting paid for. But, maybe you also realise that you are shatterring lives of "individuals"... who have no names. But since we don't even have names, since there is no violence or harassment problem to deal with, I'm sure you will never have any problem to look at yourself in a mirror.
Even Hollywood is facing the violence and harassment problem. Wikimedia still doesn't. I'm sad. But now I'm only sad for you and one of the greatest human projects of the time, you are currently making vile and foul. As for me, it's over.
X, individual [used to be] associated with our movement
On 19 October 2017 at 23:19, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:
Everyone,
The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take all harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My goal here today is to provide more information about the actions of the Wikimedia Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in which our movement finds itself.
As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the French Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies, and the Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a number of the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the French community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and concerned Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past months the Foundation has received formal and informal complaints alleging harassment and other harmful behaviour, and we have enforced existing policies whenever applicable.
Recently, an individual associated with our movement published an essay about the events in France on the blogging site Medium and shared that essay with this list. It contained a number of deeply concerning allegations of harassment. Let me first address the most troubling claims of the recent essay—those regarding the Foundation’s handling of allegations against the Wikimedia Foundation’s current Board Chair.
In May of 2017 the Wikimedia Foundation was informed, in a letter and for the first time, that the then-Executive Director of Wikimédia France was alleging claims of harassment against the current Board Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, dating back to his tenure as former Chair of Wikimédia France. In this letter the Executive Director described a number of interactions with the Foundation’s Board Chair when he was Chair of Wikimédia France, and went on to accuse him of using his position as Foundation Board Chair to to turn the Wikimedia Foundation’s sentiment against the French chapter.
Contrary to the assertion in the Medium essay, while the former Wikimédia France Executive Director’s letter detailed tense and disagreeable interactions between the two individuals, it did not characterize those interactions as sexual harassment. Also contrary to the essay’s assertions, the Wikimedia Foundation took immediate and appropriate action after receiving the complaint.
The Wikimedia Foundation, under clear direction from our Board, responded promptly:
- We notified the Vice Chair and Board Governance Chair immediately
after receiving the then-Executive Director’s letter.
- Under their direction and supervision, we promptly hired expert French
legal counsel to conduct an investigation on this issue.
- The Foundation Board Chair was informed of the investigation and
recused from all relevant discussions. The Board Chair was also recused from any discussion regarding Wikimédia France and the French Wikimedia community, including any participation in funding decisions.
- The investigation by the experts found that the French chapter’s
Executive Director’s detailed statements of facts, in addition to not being characterized by her as sexual harassment, also did not support a finding of sexual harassment.
- Based on the information provided, French counsel also looked at
whether the allegations supported a finding of “moral” harassment, ultimately concluding that they did not.
- The findings were conveyed to the then-chair of the board of Wikimédia
France. The chapter leadership was asked on more than one occasion if it had any additional evidence or wished to further discuss the conclusions. No additional information was provided.
- Under these circumstances, the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation found
no merit to the charges.
*As has been repeatedly stated, the Foundation remains fully committed to reviewing and investigating additional information, if presented, of sexual or other harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation staff or board member. We fully condemn harassment in the Wikimedia movement.*
The essay in Medium also references experiences of a number of former Wikimédia France Board members who reportedly left their posts because of alleged harassment from French Wikimedia community members. In the majority of these cases, the Wikimedia Foundation has not received complaints and has no further information about these allegations.
We are aware that some people working at the Foundation for some months have received comments from a number of community members through informal channels about alleged intra-community harassment. These included complaints and allegations of harassment made against the former Wikimédia France Executive Director and then-Board Chair by Wikimédia France staff and community members, as well as counter-complaints from former Wikimédia France board members against members of the French community. In each instance of which we are aware, the individual raising the complaint was directed to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Support and Safety team, which is trained and equipped to independently investigate and assess these matters, particularly where members of the larger Wikimedia community are concerned.
In total, the Foundation received roughly a dozen of these complaints. Each of these complaints received by the Foundation was investigated and responded to promptly, enforcing the relevant anti-harassment policies whenever appropriate. In some cases, and when appropriate, our response resulted in content (for example, content that identified Wikimedia community members who guarded their anonymity) being removed from public websites or the Foundation contacting users who posted inappropriate material. In others, we found that while certain comments at times crossed the lines of civility, the actions did not meet the threshold of sanction under our policies or constitute intentional or sustained patterns of harassment.
As a cumulative result of these complaints, the Wikimedia Foundation has recommended to Wikimédia France that they take immediate steps to implement a friendly space policy. At the chapter’s exceptional September general assembly, the motion to develop and implement a friendly space policy passed with overwhelming support, with 98% of the membership voting in favor.[3] The Wikimedia Foundation has offered Wikimédia France our assistance with this policy’s composition and implementation.
We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as they work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are already cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As part of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will independently handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful, inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded. Many dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including current community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and staff members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months. Those outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and friends have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds with one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a renewed sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we all desire.
Situations such as the recent events in France provide us with an opportunity to learn from the past in order to do better in the future. We have seen this time and again in our communities, as organizations (including the Wikimedia Foundation) have emerged from governance and other challenges stronger, with deepened commitments to openness, collaboration, and humility.
Today is another such opportunity.
Katherine
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/
[2] http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2017/09/11/vers-une- sortie-de-crise-a-wikimedia-france_5184101_4408996.html
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-nos-vies- connectees/20170718.OBS2248/exclusions-menaces-budget- recale-c-est-la-crise-chez-wikimedia-france.html
[3] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/ WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf/page1-2550px-WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf.jpg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Caroline Becker carobecker54@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Emeric,
I am very pleased that you take mental health seriously. I remember, not
so
long ago, that your actions while you were in Wikimedia France had
serious
impact on the mental health of at least two of your members.
In January, someone had a meltdown just in front of you. Could you remind us what you did after that ?
In April, you learnt that your actions as a chair caused me a medical leave. What can the Foundation and the movement as a whole learn about
how
you dealt with the situation ?
Warmly,
Caroline
2017-10-12 12:39 GMT+02:00 Emeric Vallespi emeric.vallespi@gmail.com:
Dear Maria, Dear all,
The Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees, the executive and the legal management of the Wikimedia Foundation have been informed of Nathalie Martin's complaint against her former employer now member of your
board,
and then of the criminal complaint against this same person (facts from
his
time in Wikimédia France and other from his time in your Board).
It would have been logical for a board of trustees member to gather her testimony. No one has sought to make contact with her. Why? At the very least, the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees could
have
requested a copy of the complaint, as well as the various testimonies,
so
that they could study them and make their opinion. We had no
solicitation.
Why? From what I see, the Wikimedia Foundation has done everything to stifle the problem. Here is the only initiative WMF has taken: paid
"independent
lawyers" (a concept unknown to me…) to "question Christophe". He
responded,
to the general surprise, that there was no problem. Do you really feel that this is a serious investigation? Honestly? Why did not these lawyers also hear Nathalie? Why did these lawyers not ask questions to the Wikimédia France Board
of
trustees members? Only with the testimony of the defendant himself, the Wikimedia Foundation today states that there is no problem. ... During the site visit, Nathalie proposed to the Wikimedia Foundation representatives to organize a confrontation. Not only did she have a
flat
denial, but, moreover, it was replied that it must not be addressed. Why did the Wikimedia Foundation not accede to this request for confrontation? Not to know the truth which can be too embarrassing to assume?
We have a movement employee who brilliantly held management responsibilities for 4 years (great longevity for an Executive
Director…)
who asked for help. And what is the answer of the movement, of the Wikimedia Foundation? Nothing. Nothing was undertaken to give her any
kind
of listening or help.
Marie-Alice Mathis, who courageously expressed disapproval of the
sexist
harassment of Nathalie, was also harassed by community members.
Nathalie
and Marie-Alice suffered health damages and had medical leaves issued
by
real general practitioners. The Wikimedia Foundation was informed and
what
did you do? Nothing, or worst: two messages from your staff
legitimizing
the harassment and one from a member of your board who publicly stated against Wikimédia France without any prior contact with us. What kind of help or support did you offer to Marie-Alice?
The outcome of the complaints is not even the issue at this stage and
this
is not my point (I’m not a judge as you or other community member think they are). The real problem is that today a man in the movement, if he has power position, can do absolutely everything he wants without any control.
The
problem is, despite all the empty values you’re communicating on, you legitimize whatever the community does. Because the community is the measure of all things. No objective process is foreseen to protect women (and more generally, people) or at least to hear them. Do you find this normal for a movement that advocates inclusiveness and respect?
I’ve read an ardent defender of epicene style of writing who is
accusing
of lying other women because of their private then public declarations. Having no clue of what is in the procedure. Thank you for enlightening
me
about true fight with feminism.
I’m glad that « We take all allegations of harassment seriously », but
I
can not endorse this functioning which goes against legality and simply against human values.
N.B: English is not my native language, may you be as tolerant of my selected words or sentences construction as with harassing behavior.
Thanks
for your understanding.
Regards,
Emeric Vallespi
On 11 Oct 2017, at 19:54, María Sefidari kewlshrink@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear all,
We would like to specifically address the allegations related to
harassment
in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of
harassment
seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia
Foundation
Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation
employed
independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based
on
the
information presented, the investigation found no support for the allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation
Board
as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent
investigation
if
presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider
the
allegations to be without merit.
On behalf of the Board,
María Sefidari
El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" jeblad@gmail.com escribió:
When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more
opinions
to
them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a
partly
anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the
users
are an invitation to fierce battles.
Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the
role
of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF, unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the problems, and move on.
No, I do not know any of the people involved.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < mariealice.gariel@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am
Marie-Alice
Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now
complete
and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and frustration of these past few months.
I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally
had
more
time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through
the
French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for
years
I
had
a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie
Martin
or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that
I
have
I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s
values.
Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because
I
defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign
based
on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of
all
the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked
with
them
closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
believed
everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF
sites,
email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised, questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve
been
told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist
rant
against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called
a
conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former
chair
Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats
to
withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC
funding.
People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board
early
in
the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now
call
themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly
aware
of
the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against
Christophe
for
facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by
prominent
members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that
case,
right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter
funds
for
personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French
justice
system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to
gratuitous
ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and
dictating
our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank you
very
much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses
reimbursement“.
None
of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the goal
of
spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider
community
has
clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position
and
the
Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French media
in
the
hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in the crisis.
I am also extremely disappointed that no one from this list asked us
(the
Board) what was happening when these allegations were made, with
only
a
handful of people suggesting to wait before all the facts were
known.
Instead, you took for granted the very short and extremely biased
English
summaries of the Board’s communications (which were instantly
circulated
on
this list without our consent and in violation of our chapter’s
bylaws),
and joined in the chorus of outrage, condemnation and verbal abuse.
But worse to me than all this, I am actually terrified at how easily
the
Wikimedia community can turn on a person, with no regard whatsoever
for
decency or legality, when it has made up its mind about who has no
place
there. I have personally experienced what it means to disagree with
this
angry mob: questioning the dominant opinion or calling out
individuals’
toxic behaviour makes you in turn acceptable collateral damage and a
“fair
game” target for harassment.
Speaking of this, the movement as a whole needs to address the issue
of
staff-volunteers relations exemplified by the rapid turnover of
executive
staff across chapters. Nathalie stayed at WMFR an almost record
breaking 4
years, but at what cost? I’m being extremely serious in adding that
this
conversation needs to take place before something irreversible
happens
as
a
result of harmful group behaviour within the community.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis // AlienSpoon
PS: for your information about my position regarding the WMF’s role
in
this
crisis and their recent unilaterally added conditions [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_expectations_for_ Wikimedia_France_-_2017-2018] for payment of our FDC-attributed grant, I attach my email to Katy
Love
from Sept 20.
Katy, (Cc WMFr Board and Rémi)
In the WMF "Grant expectations" document sent to the Board of WMFr,
you
mention as a condition for APG funds payment that I do not resign
from
my
position on the Board until the governance review is complete, and
that
any
Board member planning to resign must report and justify it to WMF.
You also mention that you retain the right to cease funding WMFr if
you
consider that legal threats are being used inappropriately to stifle
civil
and appropriate participation in the chapter. Moreover, you
condition
payment to being informed if the chapter leadership feels that legal
action
is appropriate to take against current or former board members or
staff.
Let me be clear: these conditions are outrageous and unacceptable.
First of all, my legitimacy as a Board member of WMFr does not come
from
any commitment to WMF but from being democratically elected by
French
chapter members. WMF has no say in who stays or not on the Board,
and
trying to intervene on such governance issues is, again, putting
both
organisations at risk of being legally recognised as co-employers.
Second, as a (volunteer) Board member I have been subjected to
harassment,
sexist abuse, and unjustified allegations of misconduct by community members, that have impacted my health and mental well being to the
point
where I was no longer able to do my (paid) job in cancer patient
care
and
my GP put me on medical leave. A large volume of this abuse took
place
on
WMF property (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro and the WMF-hosted, publicly archived mailing lists wikimedia-l and wikimediafr). You personally and on behalf of WMF encouraged French community
members
to
challenge chapter leadership citing governance issues, without a
word
mentioning the violence suffered by the Board and executive staff at
the
hands of some French members during this crisis. Worse, you
presented
the
Board's email condemning the harassment as inaccurate and
problematic,
which made the community feel all the more legitimate in their
harmful
attacks. When I reported the abuse in person to WMF employees during the site
visit
you personally empathised with my distress at the time, and thanked
me
for
being honest about how your email to the wikimediafr list had made
our
already precarious situation untenable. And then you did nothing. My husband Rémi, who witnessed first hand the effects of the
harassment
on
my health, called on you to release the site visit report so the
misconduct
allegations would stop. You didn't, until 3 days before our General Assembly (where the allegations were repeated), on the same day you
asked
that I stay on as a Board member. Even your choice of words in the
"Grant
expectations" document is telling: "egregious incivility" is not
what
we
are talking about here. We are talking about unacceptable and
illegal
defamation and harassment with serious real life consequences. Rémi also called on the wikimedia-l list to stop the unfounded
allegations,
and was attacked in turn because of "his conflict of interest as the husband of a Board member". He also reported the abuse to the WMF governance committee, to the Suport and Safety team and mentioned it
to
Christophe Henner and Katherine Maher on Twitter, to no avail. To
this
day
we haven't received any support or acknowledgement whatsoever. All
the
while the sexist abuse continues, and French editor MrButler was
moderated
on the wikimediafr maling list for his continued personal attacks
against
me. This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Board's email to the
members
was calling out, yet you continue to deliberately ignore it and
refuse
to
do anything about it.
Finally, your asking to be informed of any legal action against
chapter
members or staff is yet another example of the WMF taking sides
while
posing as a neutral arbitrator. Calling someone out on their toxic behaviour or actually filing a complaint are no legal threats or intimidation, but by claiming they are you are trying to silence
victims
by
denying them their basic rights to legal protection. At least two complaints have been filed against community members and more may be coming, including on my behalf. You will not be informed because it
is
not
for WMF to decide whether they are justified or frivolous.
For all these reasons I am deeply shocked and hurt by your payment conditions and will not abide by the terms of your grant
expectations.
With
most of WMFr funding hanging in the balance your unilaterally
revised
conditions amount to blackmail but I will not stay in harm's way at
the
request of the organisation who has failed me in every aspect when I
came
in good faith to work for the community. I will resign when I see
fit
to
protect my health, and continue to speak honestly and publicly about
your
actions and empty words of safety and inclusivity.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis, vice chair of WMFr _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Katherine Maher Executive Director
*We moved! **Our new address:*
Wikimedia Foundation 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher@wikimedia.org https://annual.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Remi, You're mail is one big complaint, may I remind you to the last phrase of your Board Handbook? It states: Fortes capacité d’auto-évaluation (Strong self-assessment capability). Thank you, Frans
*Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair +31 6 5333 9499
While this topic is painful and important, I don't have the feeling any progress is being made by continuing this tirade on this mailing list.
I can see that hiring lawyers to investigate, will (at least in my culture) always have a whiff of subjectivity. Even though this seems (from what I understand) to be the default approach in the US, which is the primary context in which the WMF operates. I would like to emphasize one sentence in Katherine's email: "the Foundation remains fully committed to reviewing and investigating additional information, if presented, of sexual or other harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation staff or board member. " This sounds to me as an invitation to the plaintiffs (*) to request to reopen the investigation and present further testimony and evidence. For obvious privacy concerns, I imagine this won't happen in public. I hope that they will make use of this offer.
What I don't see however, is what the alternate pathway is that the plaintiffs have in mind. It is suggested that this is a complaint that has been filed with the judicial system in France, which makes it even harder for anyone involved to publicly comment (while I'm not legally schooled, I suspect that any lawyer would probably advise against it). Therefore, I don't have the impression that continuing the very personal discussion about individuals without offering an alternative pathway is particularly helpful - especially as we don't even know in detail what the allegations are (a crucial piece of context). I'm even more concerned where discussions start to be held through the media (although I'm not sure I misunderstood that part).
The plaintiffs have however also mentioned that the general climate should be improved. That seems a topic where public conversations can actually be helpful. I don't have a shred of doubt that there was a toxic climate in Wikimedia France. Both parties accuse each other for being responsible for that. What I would be more interested in, is what you as the WMFR community, or we as the international community, could have done to de-escalate that situation much earlier. This is not the first conflict situation in our movement, and I fear it'll be the last.
When the dust has settled a bit, I would be in favor of asking (a subset of) the Affiliations Committee to look into the situation (and perhaps similar conflicts in other communities that were less visible), and come with some recommendations. This will probably not be very satisfactory for the involved parties where it comes to 'justice being done' - but it may help avoid more pain in the future.
With a sad heart,
Lodewijk
(*) The reason I'm not mentioning people by name is not because I don't respect them, but because I don't necessarily want this thread to turn up in search results for eternity. I imagine others may have similar good faith reasons.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Frans Grijzenhout frans@wikimedia.nl wrote:
Hi Remi, You're mail is one big complaint, may I remind you to the last phrase of your Board Handbook? It states: Fortes capacité d’auto-évaluation (Strong self-assessment capability). Thank you, Frans
*Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair
+31 6 5333 9499
*Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland* Mariaplaats 3 - 3511 LH Utrecht Kamer van Koophandel 17189036 http://www.wikimedia.nl/
2017-10-20 13:49 GMT+02:00 Rémi Mathis mathis.remi@gmail.com:
Katherine,
I told you a month ago "Maybe you should reply as a responsible human
being
and not as a trained crisis communication people". This is truer
everyday.
What did you write this email yesterday, and not one,two, three months
ago?
Because I left Wikimedia France, because a Fields Medallist left, because the president of Picasso Museum left, and because journalists began to
talk
about the harassment and the violence of some members of the community. Because the fact that Nathalie Martin had filed a complaint against Christophe Henner begins to spread not only amongst the community but
also
outside. Because the articles made people aware of the problem and that they are victims too, and new testimonies are being sent to journalists. Because you met Christophe Henner in person the day before.
Because you are doing your job to protect your boss and make as little noise as possible. But when I donate to Wikimedia, when I edit Wikipedia, that's not what I want from you. I want a safe community.
I wrote to you, Christophe and your team more than ten times between July and today. I even met your Legal Conselor and Christophe Henner to talk about the harassment. I never got an email back from you. Not a single
word
to a private message I sent. You only answered once on Twitter, because
it
was a public conversation.
Now, I'm for you "an individual", you never only *say my name*. At the same time, I receive a letter from Henner's lawyer trying to make
me
remove my post. Still keeping people quiet instead of accepting and therefore tackling
the
problems.
I spent nine years working for the movement as a benevolent member. I
have
been chair for 3 years, I worked 9-12pm for the movement for years, I was threatened by the French Intelligence Service. And thanks to this dedication, I made a lot of friends ; I met a lot of extraordinay people
;
we contracted with the Bibliothèque nationale, Versailles Palace, Ministries, etc. We made a huge and very good job.
Now, do you really think I'm leaving with no reason? Do you really think I'm a liar or frivolous? Do you think I'm being manipulated by an evil witch we had to get rid of - as some say to journalists and some add
(with
neutrality of course) to the Wikipedia article about me?
Denouncing the violence, I'm losing 30 of my closest friends, stopping
one
of my favouriste activities and canceling 9 years of my life.
Sending an email like this one, "managing" instead of "caring", you only
do
the job you're getting paid for. But, maybe you also realise that you are shatterring lives of "individuals"... who have no names. But since we don't even have names, since there is no violence or harassment problem to deal with, I'm sure
you
will never have any problem to look at yourself in a mirror.
Even Hollywood is facing the violence and harassment problem. Wikimedia still doesn't. I'm sad. But now I'm only sad for you and one of the greatest human projects of the time, you are currently making vile and foul. As for me, it's over.
X, individual [used to be] associated with our movement
On 19 October 2017 at 23:19, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Everyone,
The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take
all
harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My goal
here
today is to provide more information about the actions of the Wikimedia Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in
which
our movement finds itself.
As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the
French
Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies, and
the
Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a
number
of
the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the French community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and concerned Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past months the Foundation has received formal and informal complaints alleging
harassment
and other harmful behaviour, and we have enforced existing policies whenever applicable.
Recently, an individual associated with our movement published an essay about the events in France on the blogging site Medium and shared that essay with this list. It contained a number of deeply concerning allegations of harassment. Let me first address the most troubling
claims
of the recent essay—those regarding the Foundation’s handling of allegations against the Wikimedia Foundation’s current Board Chair.
In May of 2017 the Wikimedia Foundation was informed, in a letter and
for
the first time, that the then-Executive Director of Wikimédia France
was
alleging claims of harassment against the current Board Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, dating back to his tenure as former Chair of Wikimédia France. In this letter the Executive Director described a
number
of interactions with the Foundation’s Board Chair when he was Chair of Wikimédia France, and went on to accuse him of using his position as Foundation Board Chair to to turn the Wikimedia Foundation’s sentiment against the French chapter.
Contrary to the assertion in the Medium essay, while the former
Wikimédia
France Executive Director’s letter detailed tense and disagreeable interactions between the two individuals, it did not characterize those interactions as sexual harassment. Also contrary to the essay’s
assertions,
the Wikimedia Foundation took immediate and appropriate action after receiving the complaint.
The Wikimedia Foundation, under clear direction from our Board,
responded
promptly:
- We notified the Vice Chair and Board Governance Chair immediately
after receiving the then-Executive Director’s letter.
- Under their direction and supervision, we promptly hired expert
French
legal counsel to conduct an investigation on this issue.
- The Foundation Board Chair was informed of the investigation and
recused from all relevant discussions. The Board Chair was also
recused
from any discussion regarding Wikimédia France and the French
Wikimedia
community, including any participation in funding decisions.
- The investigation by the experts found that the French chapter’s
Executive Director’s detailed statements of facts, in addition to
not
being characterized by her as sexual harassment, also did not support a finding of sexual harassment.
- Based on the information provided, French counsel also looked at
whether the allegations supported a finding of “moral” harassment, ultimately concluding that they did not.
- The findings were conveyed to the then-chair of the board of
Wikimédia
France. The chapter leadership was asked on more than one occasion
if
it
had any additional evidence or wished to further discuss the conclusions. No additional information was provided.
- Under these circumstances, the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation
found
no merit to the charges.
*As has been repeatedly stated, the Foundation remains fully committed
to
reviewing and investigating additional information, if presented, of
sexual
or other harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation
staff
or board member. We fully condemn harassment in the Wikimedia
movement.*
The essay in Medium also references experiences of a number of former Wikimédia France Board members who reportedly left their posts because
of
alleged harassment from French Wikimedia community members. In the
majority
of these cases, the Wikimedia Foundation has not received complaints
and
has no further information about these allegations.
We are aware that some people working at the Foundation for some months have received comments from a number of community members through
informal
channels about alleged intra-community harassment. These included complaints and allegations of harassment made against the former
Wikimédia
France Executive Director and then-Board Chair by Wikimédia France
staff
and community members, as well as counter-complaints from former
Wikimédia
France board members against members of the French community. In each instance of which we are aware, the individual raising the complaint
was
directed to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Support and Safety team, which
is
trained and equipped to independently investigate and assess these
matters,
particularly where members of the larger Wikimedia community are
concerned.
In total, the Foundation received roughly a dozen of these complaints.
Each
of these complaints received by the Foundation was investigated and responded to promptly, enforcing the relevant anti-harassment policies whenever appropriate. In some cases, and when appropriate, our response resulted in content (for example, content that identified Wikimedia community members who guarded their anonymity) being removed from
public
websites or the Foundation contacting users who posted inappropriate material. In others, we found that while certain comments at times
crossed
the lines of civility, the actions did not meet the threshold of
sanction
under our policies or constitute intentional or sustained patterns of harassment.
As a cumulative result of these complaints, the Wikimedia Foundation
has
recommended to Wikimédia France that they take immediate steps to
implement
a friendly space policy. At the chapter’s exceptional September general assembly, the motion to develop and implement a friendly space policy passed with overwhelming support, with 98% of the membership voting in favor.[3] The Wikimedia Foundation has offered Wikimédia France our assistance with this policy’s composition and implementation.
We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as
they
work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are
already
cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As
part
of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will
independently
handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful, inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded.
Many
dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including
current
community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and
staff
members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months.
Those
outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and
friends
have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds
with
one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a
renewed
sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we
all
desire.
Situations such as the recent events in France provide us with an opportunity to learn from the past in order to do better in the future.
We
have seen this time and again in our communities, as organizations (including the Wikimedia Foundation) have emerged from governance and
other
challenges stronger, with deepened commitments to openness,
collaboration,
and humility.
Today is another such opportunity.
Katherine
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/
[2] http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2017/09/11/vers-une- sortie-de-crise-a-wikimedia-france_5184101_4408996.html
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-nos-vies- connectees/20170718.OBS2248/exclusions-menaces-budget- recale-c-est-la-crise-chez-wikimedia-france.html
[3] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/ WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf/page1-2550px-WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf.jpg
I must echo Lodewijk's words.
Washing dirty linen in public is beneficial to no one and damages everyone involved including those making the accusations. There will be and are lessons to be learned but right now there is a huge chilling effect from the presence of lawyers on many sides and there is nothing to be gained from this thread. There are proper avenues to deal with this, and if you deem them appropriate then use hem, but this place is not one of those avenues.
Regards Seddon
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
While this topic is painful and important, I don't have the feeling any progress is being made by continuing this tirade on this mailing list.
I can see that hiring lawyers to investigate, will (at least in my culture) always have a whiff of subjectivity. Even though this seems (from what I understand) to be the default approach in the US, which is the primary context in which the WMF operates. I would like to emphasize one sentence in Katherine's email: "the Foundation remains fully committed to reviewing and investigating additional information, if presented, of sexual or other harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation staff or board member. " This sounds to me as an invitation to the plaintiffs (*) to request to reopen the investigation and present further testimony and evidence. For obvious privacy concerns, I imagine this won't happen in public. I hope that they will make use of this offer.
What I don't see however, is what the alternate pathway is that the plaintiffs have in mind. It is suggested that this is a complaint that has been filed with the judicial system in France, which makes it even harder for anyone involved to publicly comment (while I'm not legally schooled, I suspect that any lawyer would probably advise against it). Therefore, I don't have the impression that continuing the very personal discussion about individuals without offering an alternative pathway is particularly helpful - especially as we don't even know in detail what the allegations are (a crucial piece of context). I'm even more concerned where discussions start to be held through the media (although I'm not sure I misunderstood that part).
The plaintiffs have however also mentioned that the general climate should be improved. That seems a topic where public conversations can actually be helpful. I don't have a shred of doubt that there was a toxic climate in Wikimedia France. Both parties accuse each other for being responsible for that. What I would be more interested in, is what you as the WMFR community, or we as the international community, could have done to de-escalate that situation much earlier. This is not the first conflict situation in our movement, and I fear it'll be the last.
When the dust has settled a bit, I would be in favor of asking (a subset of) the Affiliations Committee to look into the situation (and perhaps similar conflicts in other communities that were less visible), and come with some recommendations. This will probably not be very satisfactory for the involved parties where it comes to 'justice being done' - but it may help avoid more pain in the future.
With a sad heart,
Lodewijk
(*) The reason I'm not mentioning people by name is not because I don't respect them, but because I don't necessarily want this thread to turn up in search results for eternity. I imagine others may have similar good faith reasons.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Frans Grijzenhout frans@wikimedia.nl wrote:
Hi Remi, You're mail is one big complaint, may I remind you to the last phrase of your Board Handbook? It states: Fortes capacité
d’auto-évaluation
(Strong self-assessment capability). Thank you, Frans
*Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair
+31 6 5333 9499
*Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland* Mariaplaats 3 - 3511 LH Utrecht Kamer van Koophandel 17189036 http://www.wikimedia.nl/
2017-10-20 13:49 GMT+02:00 Rémi Mathis mathis.remi@gmail.com:
Katherine,
I told you a month ago "Maybe you should reply as a responsible human
being
and not as a trained crisis communication people". This is truer
everyday.
What did you write this email yesterday, and not one,two, three months
ago?
Because I left Wikimedia France, because a Fields Medallist left,
because
the president of Picasso Museum left, and because journalists began to
talk
about the harassment and the violence of some members of the community. Because the fact that Nathalie Martin had filed a complaint against Christophe Henner begins to spread not only amongst the community but
also
outside. Because the articles made people aware of the problem and that they are victims too, and new testimonies are being sent to journalists. Because you met Christophe Henner in person the day before.
Because you are doing your job to protect your boss and make as little noise as possible. But when I donate to Wikimedia, when I edit
Wikipedia,
that's not what I want from you. I want a safe community.
I wrote to you, Christophe and your team more than ten times between
July
and today. I even met your Legal Conselor and Christophe Henner to talk about the harassment. I never got an email back from you. Not a single
word
to a private message I sent. You only answered once on Twitter, because
it
was a public conversation.
Now, I'm for you "an individual", you never only *say my name*. At the same time, I receive a letter from Henner's lawyer trying to
make
me
remove my post. Still keeping people quiet instead of accepting and therefore tackling
the
problems.
I spent nine years working for the movement as a benevolent member. I
have
been chair for 3 years, I worked 9-12pm for the movement for years, I
was
threatened by the French Intelligence Service. And thanks to this dedication, I made a lot of friends ; I met a lot of extraordinay
people
;
we contracted with the Bibliothèque nationale, Versailles Palace, Ministries, etc. We made a huge and very good job.
Now, do you really think I'm leaving with no reason? Do you really
think
I'm a liar or frivolous? Do you think I'm being manipulated by an evil witch we had to get rid of - as some say to journalists and some add
(with
neutrality of course) to the Wikipedia article about me?
Denouncing the violence, I'm losing 30 of my closest friends, stopping
one
of my favouriste activities and canceling 9 years of my life.
Sending an email like this one, "managing" instead of "caring", you
only
do
the job you're getting paid for. But, maybe you also realise that you are shatterring lives of "individuals"... who have no names. But since we don't even have names, since there is no violence or harassment problem to deal with, I'm sure
you
will never have any problem to look at yourself in a mirror.
Even Hollywood is facing the violence and harassment problem. Wikimedia still doesn't. I'm sad. But now I'm only sad for you and one of the greatest human projects of the time, you are currently making vile and foul. As for me, it's over.
X, individual [used to be] associated with our movement
On 19 October 2017 at 23:19, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Everyone,
The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take
all
harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My
goal
here
today is to provide more information about the actions of the
Wikimedia
Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in
which
our movement finds itself.
As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the
French
Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies,
and
the
Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a
number
of
the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the
French
community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and
concerned
Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past months the Foundation has received formal and informal complaints alleging
harassment
and other harmful behaviour, and we have enforced existing policies whenever applicable.
Recently, an individual associated with our movement published an
essay
about the events in France on the blogging site Medium and shared
that
essay with this list. It contained a number of deeply concerning allegations of harassment. Let me first address the most troubling
claims
of the recent essay—those regarding the Foundation’s handling of allegations against the Wikimedia Foundation’s current Board Chair.
In May of 2017 the Wikimedia Foundation was informed, in a letter and
for
the first time, that the then-Executive Director of Wikimédia France
was
alleging claims of harassment against the current Board Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, dating back to his tenure as former Chair of Wikimédia France. In this letter the Executive Director described a
number
of interactions with the Foundation’s Board Chair when he was Chair
of
Wikimédia France, and went on to accuse him of using his position as Foundation Board Chair to to turn the Wikimedia Foundation’s
sentiment
against the French chapter.
Contrary to the assertion in the Medium essay, while the former
Wikimédia
France Executive Director’s letter detailed tense and disagreeable interactions between the two individuals, it did not characterize
those
interactions as sexual harassment. Also contrary to the essay’s
assertions,
the Wikimedia Foundation took immediate and appropriate action after receiving the complaint.
The Wikimedia Foundation, under clear direction from our Board,
responded
promptly:
- We notified the Vice Chair and Board Governance Chair
immediately
after receiving the then-Executive Director’s letter.
- Under their direction and supervision, we promptly hired expert
French
legal counsel to conduct an investigation on this issue.
- The Foundation Board Chair was informed of the investigation and
recused from all relevant discussions. The Board Chair was also
recused
from any discussion regarding Wikimédia France and the French
Wikimedia
community, including any participation in funding decisions.
- The investigation by the experts found that the French chapter’s
Executive Director’s detailed statements of facts, in addition to
not
being characterized by her as sexual harassment, also did not support a finding of sexual harassment.
- Based on the information provided, French counsel also looked at
whether the allegations supported a finding of “moral” harassment, ultimately concluding that they did not.
- The findings were conveyed to the then-chair of the board of
Wikimédia
France. The chapter leadership was asked on more than one occasion
if
it
had any additional evidence or wished to further discuss the conclusions. No additional information was provided.
- Under these circumstances, the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation
found
no merit to the charges.
*As has been repeatedly stated, the Foundation remains fully
committed
to
reviewing and investigating additional information, if presented, of
sexual
or other harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation
staff
or board member. We fully condemn harassment in the Wikimedia
movement.*
The essay in Medium also references experiences of a number of former Wikimédia France Board members who reportedly left their posts
because
of
alleged harassment from French Wikimedia community members. In the
majority
of these cases, the Wikimedia Foundation has not received complaints
and
has no further information about these allegations.
We are aware that some people working at the Foundation for some
months
have received comments from a number of community members through
informal
channels about alleged intra-community harassment. These included complaints and allegations of harassment made against the former
Wikimédia
France Executive Director and then-Board Chair by Wikimédia France
staff
and community members, as well as counter-complaints from former
Wikimédia
France board members against members of the French community. In each instance of which we are aware, the individual raising the complaint
was
directed to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Support and Safety team, which
is
trained and equipped to independently investigate and assess these
matters,
particularly where members of the larger Wikimedia community are
concerned.
In total, the Foundation received roughly a dozen of these
complaints.
Each
of these complaints received by the Foundation was investigated and responded to promptly, enforcing the relevant anti-harassment
policies
whenever appropriate. In some cases, and when appropriate, our
response
resulted in content (for example, content that identified Wikimedia community members who guarded their anonymity) being removed from
public
websites or the Foundation contacting users who posted inappropriate material. In others, we found that while certain comments at times
crossed
the lines of civility, the actions did not meet the threshold of
sanction
under our policies or constitute intentional or sustained patterns of harassment.
As a cumulative result of these complaints, the Wikimedia Foundation
has
recommended to Wikimédia France that they take immediate steps to
implement
a friendly space policy. At the chapter’s exceptional September
general
assembly, the motion to develop and implement a friendly space policy passed with overwhelming support, with 98% of the membership voting
in
favor.[3] The Wikimedia Foundation has offered Wikimédia France our assistance with this policy’s composition and implementation.
We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as
they
work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are
already
cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As
part
of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will
independently
handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation
and
Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming,
respectful,
inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have
unfolded.
Many
dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including
current
community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and
staff
members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months.
Those
outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and
friends
have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds
with
one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a
renewed
sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we
all
desire.
Situations such as the recent events in France provide us with an opportunity to learn from the past in order to do better in the
future.
We
have seen this time and again in our communities, as organizations (including the Wikimedia Foundation) have emerged from governance and
other
challenges stronger, with deepened commitments to openness,
collaboration,
and humility.
Today is another such opportunity.
Katherine
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/
[2] http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2017/09/11/vers-une- sortie-de-crise-a-wikimedia-france_5184101_4408996.html
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-nos-vies- connectees/20170718.OBS2248/exclusions-menaces-budget- recale-c-est-la-crise-chez-wikimedia-france.html
[3] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/ WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf/page1-2550px-WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf.jpg
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Katherine,
2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org:
[...]
We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as they work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are already cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As part of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will independently handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful, inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded. Many dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including current community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and staff members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months. Those outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and friends have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds with one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a renewed sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we all desire.
As the representative of the local branch of the labor union ASSO-Solidaires at Wikimédia France, I wanted to thank you and the WMF staff members who took part in the site visit in Paris in July (namely Katy Love, Winifred Olliff, Stephen Laporte and James Baldwin) for hearing the distress of the staff members at a time when Wikimédia France's board plainly refused to discuss with the staff.
I also wanted to confirm that things are getting better with the new board elected in September.
I cannot speak about what my coworkers went through without asking them first, but I can share an example from my own story: in February, I was issued a « rappel à l'ordre » (warning) by the former direction and board, accusing me of disloyalty to the chapter because I had a girlfriend. It was cancelled this month by the new board, and this is a huge relief to me.
Best regards, Sylvain.
Sylvain,
I have to answer to your email where you’re especially lying. You say that you’re writing on behalf of a union section of the employees of Wikimedia France but I’m personally curious to know the weight of this union section. My question is actually: who else is represented by your email, if not yourself?
Moreover, you’re saying that you received a « warning » (?) because you had a girlfriend. Is it serious? Your employer asked you to distinguish professional time and personal time. Indeed, you were reminded that you had to dedicate your work hours to the missions that were devoted to you and not to solve problems related to your personal life, especially if it interferes with organization’s activities and governance. It is also you who came, on your own, to tell us about the complexity of your personal and relationship situation in order to benefit of professional arrangements. The direction never looked for, nor asked, any information on this subject.
You’re mentioning the cancellation of the letter. Since, to my knowledge, no sanction has been filed to your HR record, I do not really see what have been canceled. I can understand that supporting your new board of trustees, involved in the governance issues and in the criminal complaints filed is critical to show your loyalty.
Do you know how impatient am I to discover your next fable? I guess the only one never mentioned yet is maybe about a murder or something (although a streetfight scenario has already been invented x’D).
I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not deceived by a scenario built from scratch. Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public accusations still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter in this conflict with some people.
For months, several lies have been told by different people. Because the Wikimedia community protect itself and its members by harassing and defaming people who question the probity and integrity of some of its members doesn’t make of this lies the truth.
Best regards to all of you, -- Emeric Vallespi
On 22 Nov 2017, at 13:37, Sylvain Boissel sylvain.boissel@wikimedia.fr wrote:
Hi Katherine,
2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org:
[...]
We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as they work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are already cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As part of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will independently handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful, inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded. Many dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including current community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and staff members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months. Those outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and friends have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds with one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a renewed sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we all desire.
As the representative of the local branch of the labor union ASSO-Solidaires at Wikimédia France, I wanted to thank you and the WMF staff members who took part in the site visit in Paris in July (namely Katy Love, Winifred Olliff, Stephen Laporte and James Baldwin) for hearing the distress of the staff members at a time when Wikimédia France's board plainly refused to discuss with the staff.
I also wanted to confirm that things are getting better with the new board elected in September.
I cannot speak about what my coworkers went through without asking them first, but I can share an example from my own story: in February, I was issued a « rappel à l'ordre » (warning) by the former direction and board, accusing me of disloyalty to the chapter because I had a girlfriend. It was cancelled this month by the new board, and this is a huge relief to me.
Best regards, Sylvain.
-- *Sylvain Boissel* Délégué du personnel et Responsable de la section syndicale ASSO-Solidaires *WIKIMÉDIA FRANCE* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Emeric,
When you say, that no sanction has filed his HR record, you are half or completely lying. The existence of a "rappel à l'ordre" (warning) is an argument which can support fire someone of the staff so it should be in a HR record.
In the same way Sylvain never said he is writing his email on behalf of an union of the employees of Wikimedia France but that he is the representative of the the employees of Wikimedia France which is plenty true.
From the whole wikimedia france, movement, during the #wmfrgate, it was only you Emeric and the old direction as a whole that your declaration don't match the facts or your subsequent declaration, as it it happened during the #bandeaugate in summer last year.
I have still to see the said "lies" from your opponent which contradicts other public information (apart the words of you and the old direction)
Xavier Combelle
Le 23/11/2017 à 20:54, Emeric Vallespi a écrit :
Sylvain,
I have to answer to your email where you’re especially lying. You say that you’re writing on behalf of a union section of the employees of Wikimedia France but I’m personally curious to know the weight of this union section. My question is actually: who else is represented by your email, if not yourself?
Moreover, you’re saying that you received a « warning » (?) because you had a girlfriend. Is it serious? Your employer asked you to distinguish professional time and personal time. Indeed, you were reminded that you had to dedicate your work hours to the missions that were devoted to you and not to solve problems related to your personal life, especially if it interferes with organization’s activities and governance. It is also you who came, on your own, to tell us about the complexity of your personal and relationship situation in order to benefit of professional arrangements. The direction never looked for, nor asked, any information on this subject.
You’re mentioning the cancellation of the letter. Since, to my knowledge, no sanction has been filed to your HR record, I do not really see what have been canceled. I can understand that supporting your new board of trustees, involved in the governance issues and in the criminal complaints filed is critical to show your loyalty.
Do you know how impatient am I to discover your next fable? I guess the only one never mentioned yet is maybe about a murder or something (although a streetfight scenario has already been invented x’D).
I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not deceived by a scenario built from scratch. Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public accusations still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter in this conflict with some people.
For months, several lies have been told by different people. Because the Wikimedia community protect itself and its members by harassing and defaming people who question the probity and integrity of some of its members doesn’t make of this lies the truth.
Best regards to all of you,
Emeric Vallespi
On 22 Nov 2017, at 13:37, Sylvain Boissel sylvain.boissel@wikimedia.fr wrote:
Hi Katherine,
2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org:
[...] We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as they work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are already cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As part of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will independently handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful, inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded. Many dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including current community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and staff members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months. Those outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and friends have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds with one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a renewed sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we all desire.
As the representative of the local branch of the labor union ASSO-Solidaires at Wikimédia France, I wanted to thank you and the WMF staff members who took part in the site visit in Paris in July (namely Katy Love, Winifred Olliff, Stephen Laporte and James Baldwin) for hearing the distress of the staff members at a time when Wikimédia France's board plainly refused to discuss with the staff.
I also wanted to confirm that things are getting better with the new board elected in September.
I cannot speak about what my coworkers went through without asking them first, but I can share an example from my own story: in February, I was issued a « rappel à l'ordre » (warning) by the former direction and board, accusing me of disloyalty to the chapter because I had a girlfriend. It was cancelled this month by the new board, and this is a huge relief to me.
Best regards, Sylvain.
-- *Sylvain Boissel* Délégué du personnel et Responsable de la section syndicale ASSO-Solidaires *WIKIMÉDIA FRANCE* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Can I suggest to all parties that, as was the case last time this came up here, raking this conflict over the coals here on a mailing list where very few of us have direct knowledge of the situation, or the power to do anything about it in any case, is probably not helpful for anyone? I am especially uncomfortable at the notion of the discussion of people's HR records and personal lives in a public forum such as this.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 November 2017 at 06:23, Xavier Combelle xavier.combelle@gmail.com wrote:
Emeric,
When you say, that no sanction has filed his HR record, you are half or completely lying. The existence of a "rappel à l'ordre" (warning) is an argument which can support fire someone of the staff so it should be in a HR record.
In the same way Sylvain never said he is writing his email on behalf of an union of the employees of Wikimedia France but that he is the representative of the the employees of Wikimedia France which is plenty true.
From the whole wikimedia france, movement, during the #wmfrgate, it was only you Emeric and the old direction as a whole that your declaration don't match the facts or your subsequent declaration, as it it happened during the #bandeaugate in summer last year.
I have still to see the said "lies" from your opponent which contradicts other public information (apart the words of you and the old direction)
Xavier Combelle
Le 23/11/2017 à 20:54, Emeric Vallespi a écrit :
Sylvain,
I have to answer to your email where you’re especially lying. You say that you’re writing on behalf of a union section of the
employees of Wikimedia France but I’m personally curious to know the weight of this union section. My question is actually: who else is represented by your email, if not yourself?
Moreover, you’re saying that you received a « warning » (?) because you
had a girlfriend. Is it serious?
Your employer asked you to distinguish professional time and personal
time. Indeed, you were reminded that you had to dedicate your work hours to the missions that were devoted to you and not to solve problems related to your personal life, especially if it interferes with organization’s activities and governance. It is also you who came, on your own, to tell us about the complexity of your personal and relationship situation in order to benefit of professional arrangements. The direction never looked for, nor asked, any information on this subject.
You’re mentioning the cancellation of the letter. Since, to my
knowledge, no sanction has been filed to your HR record, I do not really see what have been canceled.
I can understand that supporting your new board of trustees, involved in
the governance issues and in the criminal complaints filed is critical to show your loyalty.
Do you know how impatient am I to discover your next fable? I guess the
only one never mentioned yet is maybe about a murder or something (although a streetfight scenario has already been invented x’D).
I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the
community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not deceived by a scenario built from scratch.
Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public
accusations still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter in this conflict with some people.
For months, several lies have been told by different people. Because the
Wikimedia community protect itself and its members by harassing and defaming people who question the probity and integrity of some of its members doesn’t make of this lies the truth.
Best regards to all of you,
Emeric Vallespi
On 22 Nov 2017, at 13:37, Sylvain Boissel sylvain.boissel@wikimedia.fr
wrote:
Hi Katherine,
2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org:
[...] We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as
they
work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are
already
cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As
part
of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will
independently
handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful, inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded.
Many
dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including
current
community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and
staff
members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months.
Those
outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and
friends
have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds
with
one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a
renewed
sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we
all
desire.
As the representative of the local branch of the labor union ASSO-Solidaires at Wikimédia France, I wanted to thank you and the WMF staff members who took part in the site visit in Paris in July (namely Katy Love, Winifred Olliff, Stephen Laporte and James Baldwin) for
hearing
the distress of the staff members at a time when Wikimédia France's
board
plainly refused to discuss with the staff.
I also wanted to confirm that things are getting better with the new
board
elected in September.
I cannot speak about what my coworkers went through without asking them first, but I can share an example from my own story: in February, I was issued a « rappel à l'ordre » (warning) by the former direction and board, accusing me of disloyalty to the chapter because I had a girlfriend. It was cancelled this month by the new board, and this is a huge relief to me.
Best regards, Sylvain.
-- *Sylvain Boissel* Délégué du personnel et Responsable de la section syndicale
ASSO-Solidaires
*WIKIMÉDIA FRANCE* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
One must have the courage of one's words and assume them. There is a very simple way of knowing who is lying: can Sylvain publish the letter in question? I will be really interested to see when he was punished for "having a girlfriend". Furthermore, I can't agree more with Craig and as I said, what a shame to expose all of this here publicly. But be sure that when I'll stop to read false statements or that I'm providing "alternative facts", I won't need anymore to write here.
Cheers, -- Emeric Vallespi
2017-11-24 3:34 GMT+01:00 Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net:
Can I suggest to all parties that, as was the case last time this came up here, raking this conflict over the coals here on a mailing list where very few of us have direct knowledge of the situation, or the power to do anything about it in any case, is probably not helpful for anyone? I am especially uncomfortable at the notion of the discussion of people's HR records and personal lives in a public forum such as this.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 November 2017 at 06:23, Xavier Combelle xavier.combelle@gmail.com wrote:
Emeric,
When you say, that no sanction has filed his HR record, you are half or completely lying. The existence of a "rappel à l'ordre" (warning) is an argument which can support fire someone of the staff so it should be in a HR record.
In the same way Sylvain never said he is writing his email on behalf of an union of the employees of Wikimedia France but that he is the representative of the the employees of Wikimedia France which is plenty true.
From the whole wikimedia france, movement, during the #wmfrgate, it was only you Emeric and the old direction as a whole that your declaration don't match the facts or your subsequent declaration, as it it happened during the #bandeaugate in summer last
year.
I have still to see the said "lies" from your opponent which contradicts other public information (apart the words of you and the old direction)
Xavier Combelle
Le 23/11/2017 à 20:54, Emeric Vallespi a écrit :
Sylvain,
I have to answer to your email where you’re especially lying. You say that you’re writing on behalf of a union section of the
employees of Wikimedia France but I’m personally curious to know the
weight
of this union section. My question is actually: who else is represented
by
your email, if not yourself?
Moreover, you’re saying that you received a « warning » (?) because you
had a girlfriend. Is it serious?
Your employer asked you to distinguish professional time and personal
time. Indeed, you were reminded that you had to dedicate your work hours
to
the missions that were devoted to you and not to solve problems related
to
your personal life, especially if it interferes with organization’s activities and governance. It is also you who came, on your own, to tell
us
about the complexity of your personal and relationship situation in order to benefit of professional arrangements. The direction never looked for, nor asked, any information on this subject.
You’re mentioning the cancellation of the letter. Since, to my
knowledge, no sanction has been filed to your HR record, I do not really see what have been canceled.
I can understand that supporting your new board of trustees, involved
in
the governance issues and in the criminal complaints filed is critical to show your loyalty.
Do you know how impatient am I to discover your next fable? I guess the
only one never mentioned yet is maybe about a murder or something
(although
a streetfight scenario has already been invented x’D).
I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the
community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not deceived by a scenario built from scratch.
Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public
accusations still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter
in
this conflict with some people.
For months, several lies have been told by different people. Because
the
Wikimedia community protect itself and its members by harassing and defaming people who question the probity and integrity of some of its members doesn’t make of this lies the truth.
Best regards to all of you,
Emeric Vallespi
On 22 Nov 2017, at 13:37, Sylvain Boissel <
sylvain.boissel@wikimedia.fr>
wrote:
Hi Katherine,
2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org:
[...] We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as
they
work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are
already
cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As
part
of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will
independently
handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation
and
Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming,
respectful,
inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have
unfolded.
Many
dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including
current
community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and
staff
members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months.
Those
outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and
friends
have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds
with
one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a
renewed
sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we
all
desire.
As the representative of the local branch of the labor union ASSO-Solidaires at Wikimédia France, I wanted to thank you and the WMF staff members who took part in the site visit in Paris in July
(namely
Katy Love, Winifred Olliff, Stephen Laporte and James Baldwin) for
hearing
the distress of the staff members at a time when Wikimédia France's
board
plainly refused to discuss with the staff.
I also wanted to confirm that things are getting better with the new
board
elected in September.
I cannot speak about what my coworkers went through without asking
them
first, but I can share an example from my own story: in February, I
was
issued a « rappel à l'ordre » (warning) by the former direction and board, accusing me of disloyalty to the chapter because I had a girlfriend. It was cancelled this month by the new board, and this is a huge relief to
me.
Best regards, Sylvain.
-- *Sylvain Boissel* Délégué du personnel et Responsable de la section syndicale
ASSO-Solidaires
*WIKIMÉDIA FRANCE* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Nov 23, 2017 2:55 PM, "Emeric Vallespi" emeric.vallespi@gmail.com wrote:
<sniiip>
the Wikimedia community protect itself and its members by harassing and defaming people who question
I cannot imagine why anyone would attempt to defame you, when they cannot hope to surpass the eloquence and thoroughness of your own writing.
—Sam.
Dear Sylvain,
Thank you for your message and thank you for showing us that our Wikimedia employees are white collar workers, and as such they also have the right to be part of an organized labor movement. For those who do not know me well, I am a board member of the Geneva public sector labor union association (11 different labor unions), so I strongly encourage initiatives like the French one.
I am also a strong believer in settling disputes through negotiations and discussions between the different parties involved. A local labor union branch is a great way to ensure that the employees can voice their grievances. This whole unfortunate situation might have been avoided if the employees had been able to express their distress, and if they could have received the support of a larger labor union used to dealing with this type of management issues.
Once again, thank you Sylvain for telling us about this. I now hope that you will all forgive me for preaching about labor unions...
Best regards Gabe
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 23, 2017 2:55 PM, "Emeric Vallespi" emeric.vallespi@gmail.com wrote:
<sniiip>
the Wikimedia community protect itself and its members by harassing and defaming people who question
I cannot imagine why anyone would attempt to defame you, when they cannot hope to surpass the eloquence and thoroughness of your own writing.
—Sam. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Saluton Samuel kaj ĉiuj,
Le 23/11/2017 à 22:39, Samuel Klein a écrit :
On Nov 23, 2017 2:55 PM, "Emeric Vallespi" emeric.vallespi@gmail.com wrote:
<sniiip>
the Wikimedia community protect itself and its members by harassing and defaming people who question
Please don't turn it to a inaccurate "us versus them" representation. Sure there are people in our community that misbehaves in reaction to a feeling of aggression. But condemning the whole community for also including this kind of behaviour is not constructive. We also have people who try, not vehemently, to listen to each party, bring compassion, and try to help solving conflicts through dialogue as far as possible.
Of course our community is not perfect, we are human, and nothing characterize better human beings than erroneous behaviours. But as far as I know, we don't promote harassment, or any form of violence, as an acceptable solution to problems we face.
I cannot imagine why anyone would attempt to defame you, when they cannot hope to surpass the eloquence and thoroughness of your own writing.
Well, they are situation where having more reasonable arguments are not enough to meet prevalence in decisions. Typically when different decision can be imposed by force. That may be physical violence, psychological abuse, hierarchical authoritarian misconduct, and so on.
People are not always reacting with violent means because they are inherently wired to such a behaviour as first reaction. Often they will act like that as a last resort because they themselves feel assaulted and see no other mean to react.
I think it would be healthy to redact pattern/anti-pattern for that kind of problematic and extensively promote them. Currently we don't have much material pertaining harassment in our pattern library https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Harassment&prefix=Learning+patterns%2F&fulltext=Search+the+Pattern+Library&fulltext=Search&searchToken=9ntgdc5ao83rezg4kxhiwx1am.
Distingeble, mathieu
—Sam. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Good evening Émeric, good evening all.
Allow me to reply. Oh wait, that's right, I don't need you to allow the publication of emails on this mailing list - this sure comes as a change, and a welcome one too !
I won't be speaking of any member of the community, whether volunteer or employee, it is not the purpose of this email.
You shockingly ask of a union representative the identities of other unionized workers. It may come as a surprise to you, but, at least in France, whether one is unionized or not is part of their private life, and should in no circumstance be divulged by anyone other than themselves, should they feel the desire to. That desire can't be coerced, and nobody should rob someone else of their private life or its divulgation. Aside from that, *in the unlikely event* the union section comprises a single person, or roughly 10% of all Wikimédia France employees, that would still be a feat, and more than the national average of about 5% in the private sector and just under 10% overall ; but union sections MUST (RFC 2119) be composed of at least two people, per article L2142-1 of french Labour Law. So there's at least two employees in that section, which is at least 20% (give or take), way above the national average.
Lastly, I'd like to address your accusations of lying. It seems to me that the only answer you ever provide to any criticism is that it's all a lie. In other words, you're quick to slap everyone with Kellyanne Conway's motto, "fake news", but you lack her talent and, as she's had dips on it, the element of surprise. I've faced them before myself, when I tried to explain to the rest of the members an email YOU sent to discussions@, the non-public mailing list of Wikimédia France, and its subtext. Specifically, the email I sent on May 6th was rejected, and I was told on May 7th by a representative of the Board of Trustees (of which you were chairman) it was all a "web of ravings" ("marasme de spéculations") that was based on former members' side of the story — former members which, by the way, I hadn't had any meaningful contact in a few years — ; when in fact, it was solely based on YOUR version of the story, using basic reasoning skills. As it turns out, and as a few people can attest, a good amount of what I " *raved*" in my email turned out to not just be generally true, but rather accurate as well. So forgive me to say, but I feel you lack proper footing to decide on who's lying and who's not.
Really, the whole story is, for lack of a better word, and even though Donald Trump has already used it, "sad" ; and it would be best for the former Board of Trustees, if not to apologize to the people involved, to at least lay low about it.
Happy Thanksgiving dinner to the ones who have it, and happy nondenominational evening to the ones who don't.
Alphos Member of WMFr, despite the odds
2017-11-23 20:54 GMT+01:00 Emeric Vallespi emeric.vallespi@gmail.com:
Sylvain,
I have to answer to your email where you’re especially lying. You say that you’re writing on behalf of a union section of the employees of Wikimedia France but I’m personally curious to know the weight of this union section. My question is actually: who else is represented by your email, if not yourself?
Moreover, you’re saying that you received a « warning » (?) because you had a girlfriend. Is it serious? Your employer asked you to distinguish professional time and personal time. Indeed, you were reminded that you had to dedicate your work hours to the missions that were devoted to you and not to solve problems related to your personal life, especially if it interferes with organization’s activities and governance. It is also you who came, on your own, to tell us about the complexity of your personal and relationship situation in order to benefit of professional arrangements. The direction never looked for, nor asked, any information on this subject.
You’re mentioning the cancellation of the letter. Since, to my knowledge, no sanction has been filed to your HR record, I do not really see what have been canceled. I can understand that supporting your new board of trustees, involved in the governance issues and in the criminal complaints filed is critical to show your loyalty.
Do you know how impatient am I to discover your next fable? I guess the only one never mentioned yet is maybe about a murder or something (although a streetfight scenario has already been invented x’D).
I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not deceived by a scenario built from scratch. Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public accusations still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter in this conflict with some people.
For months, several lies have been told by different people. Because the Wikimedia community protect itself and its members by harassing and defaming people who question the probity and integrity of some of its members doesn’t make of this lies the truth.
Best regards to all of you,
Emeric Vallespi
On 22 Nov 2017, at 13:37, Sylvain Boissel sylvain.boissel@wikimedia.fr
wrote:
Hi Katherine,
2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org:
[...]
We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as
they
work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are
already
cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As
part
of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will
independently
handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful, inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded.
Many
dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including current community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and
staff
members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months. Those outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and
friends
have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds
with
one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a renewed sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we all desire.
As the representative of the local branch of the labor union ASSO-Solidaires at Wikimédia France, I wanted to thank you and the WMF staff members who took part in the site visit in Paris in July (namely Katy Love, Winifred Olliff, Stephen Laporte and James Baldwin) for
hearing
the distress of the staff members at a time when Wikimédia France's board plainly refused to discuss with the staff.
I also wanted to confirm that things are getting better with the new
board
elected in September.
I cannot speak about what my coworkers went through without asking them first, but I can share an example from my own story: in February, I was issued a « rappel à l'ordre » (warning) by the former direction and board, accusing me of disloyalty to the chapter because I had a girlfriend. It was cancelled this month by the new board, and this is a huge relief to me.
Best regards, Sylvain.
-- *Sylvain Boissel* Délégué du personnel et Responsable de la section syndicale
ASSO-Solidaires
*WIKIMÉDIA FRANCE* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Saluton ĉiuj,
Le 23/11/2017 à 20:54, Emeric Vallespi a écrit :
I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not deceived by a scenario built from scratch. Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public accusations still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter in this conflict with some people.
I seize the opportunity to ask: what is the legal status of the list? Is it considered public?
I mean, it's easy to subscribe for anyone, but you still have to subscribe. And as far as I know, accessing archives require to login. Now there are other website which make crawled archives publicly accessible, but just because some do that doesn't mean it's legal.
Also I'm not aware of any license regarding posted emails, so plain copyright probably apply, minus any exception related to epistolary material that might exist.
It might be interesting to make any post to our mailing list a free licensed material. I've been thinking about that as I had the idea to extensively analyse the wikidata-l mailling list and publish a side by side statements and extracted keywords elements, but from a legal point of view it is probably not feasible. That might be circumvented with links, or providing a software which generate the expected table from provided references, but anyway it's less practical than a straight published table. Having this material published under a free license would make it far more useful in any kind of study with such an extensive goal in its publication.
Now, switching to a free license would not make the change retroactive, but it would already cover new material. Also it should be possible to contact most posters through their email and ask permission to release their previous publications under one or more free licenses and change archive metadata accordingly.
Legale, mathieu
Archives are public, so, IMHO, the list is.
Vito
2017-11-24 11:11 GMT+01:00 mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org>:
Saluton ĉiuj,
Le 23/11/2017 à 20:54, Emeric Vallespi a écrit :
I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not deceived by a scenario built from scratch. Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public accusations still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter in this conflict with some people.
I seize the opportunity to ask: what is the legal status of the list? Is
it considered public?
I mean, it's easy to subscribe for anyone, but you still have to subscribe. And as far as I know, accessing archives require to login. Now there are other website which make crawled archives publicly accessible, but just because some do that doesn't mean it's legal.
Also I'm not aware of any license regarding posted emails, so plain copyright probably apply, minus any exception related to epistolary material that might exist.
It might be interesting to make any post to our mailing list a free licensed material. I've been thinking about that as I had the idea to extensively analyse the wikidata-l mailling list and publish a side by side statements and extracted keywords elements, but from a legal point of view it is probably not feasible. That might be circumvented with links, or providing a software which generate the expected table from provided references, but anyway it's less practical than a straight published table. Having this material published under a free license would make it far more useful in any kind of study with such an extensive goal in its publication.
Now, switching to a free license would not make the change retroactive, but it would already cover new material. Also it should be possible to contact most posters through their email and ask permission to release their previous publications under one or more free licenses and change archive metadata accordingly.
Legale, mathieu _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, You deny the existence of copyright.. It being public does not mean that it is fair game for any and all purposes. Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2017 at 14:39, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Archives are public, so, IMHO, the list is.
Vito
2017-11-24 11:11 GMT+01:00 mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org>:
Saluton ĉiuj,
Le 23/11/2017 à 20:54, Emeric Vallespi a écrit :
I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not deceived by a scenario built from scratch. Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public
accusations
still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter in this conflict with some people.
I seize the opportunity to ask: what is the legal status of the list? Is
it considered public?
I mean, it's easy to subscribe for anyone, but you still have to subscribe. And as far as I know, accessing archives require to login. Now there are other website which make crawled archives publicly accessible, but just because some do that doesn't mean it's legal.
Also I'm not aware of any license regarding posted emails, so plain copyright probably apply, minus any exception related to epistolary material that might exist.
It might be interesting to make any post to our mailing list a free licensed material. I've been thinking about that as I had the idea to extensively analyse the wikidata-l mailling list and publish a side by
side
statements and extracted keywords elements, but from a legal point of
view
it is probably not feasible. That might be circumvented with links, or providing a software which generate the expected table from provided references, but anyway it's less practical than a straight published
table.
Having this material published under a free license would make it far
more
useful in any kind of study with such an extensive goal in its
publication.
Now, switching to a free license would not make the change retroactive, but it would already cover new material. Also it should be possible to contact most posters through their email and ask permission to release their previous publications under one or more free licenses and change archive metadata accordingly.
Legale, mathieu _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
N00bs are usually taught "public" has nothing to do with copyright ;)
Vito
2017-11-24 15:57 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, You deny the existence of copyright.. It being public does not mean that it is fair game for any and all purposes. Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2017 at 14:39, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Archives are public, so, IMHO, the list is.
Vito
2017-11-24 11:11 GMT+01:00 mathieu stumpf guntz < psychoslave@culture-libre.org>:
Saluton ĉiuj,
Le 23/11/2017 à 20:54, Emeric Vallespi a écrit :
I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not deceived by a scenario built from scratch. Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public
accusations
still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter in this conflict with some people.
I seize the opportunity to ask: what is the legal status of the list?
Is
it considered public?
I mean, it's easy to subscribe for anyone, but you still have to subscribe. And as far as I know, accessing archives require to login.
Now
there are other website which make crawled archives publicly
accessible,
but just because some do that doesn't mean it's legal.
Also I'm not aware of any license regarding posted emails, so plain copyright probably apply, minus any exception related to epistolary material that might exist.
It might be interesting to make any post to our mailing list a free licensed material. I've been thinking about that as I had the idea to extensively analyse the wikidata-l mailling list and publish a side by
side
statements and extracted keywords elements, but from a legal point of
view
it is probably not feasible. That might be circumvented with links, or providing a software which generate the expected table from provided references, but anyway it's less practical than a straight published
table.
Having this material published under a free license would make it far
more
useful in any kind of study with such an extensive goal in its
publication.
Now, switching to a free license would not make the change retroactive, but it would already cover new material. Also it should be possible to contact most posters through their email and ask permission to release their previous publications under one or more free licenses and change archive metadata accordingly.
Legale, mathieu _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
mathieu stumpf guntz <psychoslave@culture-libre.org > wrote:
I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not deceived by a scenario built from scratch. Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public accusations still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter in this conflict with some people.
I seize the opportunity to ask: what is the legal status of the list? Is it considered public?
I mean, it's easy to subscribe for anyone, but you still have to subscribe. And as far as I know, accessing archives require to login. Now there are other website which make crawled archives publicly accessible, but just because some do that doesn't mean it's legal.
[…]
Accessing the archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/ does not require logging in (and AFAIR never has), but even if it did, for all practical (legal) purposes this mailing list is a public venue, if only because anybody can subscribe to it, thus not limiting the audience in any meaningful way.
Tim
Taking María's statement on behalf of the WMF by itself, there are a couple of simple in-line questions about handling governance I would like to make, based on my experience with a number of governance issues both within and outside of Wikimedia related organizations.
I'm sticking to this being a governance case, as the WMF Board can only be expected to make resolutions on the basis of good governance.
On 11 October 2017 at 18:54, María Sefidari kewlshrink@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
We would like to specifically address the allegations related to harassment in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation employed independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on the information presented, the investigation found no support for the allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
The statement is short on factual detail despite being described as specific. It would be reassuring if the following actions would be considered by the Board, and responded to even if rejected: 1. Publish the timeline of events, which would be essential for any governance review. Several events are implicit in the statement, but absent any facts about when or who, they easily lead to later confusion. 2. Publish the report from the investigators. If necessary this can be redacted, however from emails that have been made a public record so far, it's hard to imagine what now needs to remain confidential. 3. Explain who was contracted to produce the report and why and how they were chosen. 4. Explain what information has been presented, so there can be no doubt whether the WMF and the Board have been presented with all the information available and the steps taken to ensure potential bias in how information was selected was minimized, for example by not pre-selecting who to talk to, rather than giving the investigators a free hand to ask for interviews.
The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation if presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the allegations to be without merit.
This closing sentence seem to give a heavy implication that the Board is aware that more information may exist than was used. It seems unhelpful to have an investigation or review that does not take proactive steps to gather information from all the stakeholders identified so that it can stick as a final resolution. In the absence of specifics, it's hard to imagine that anyone outside of the WMF board will be able to understand if you are missing any critical information, yet somehow that appears to be what you are expecting.
On behalf of the Board,
María Sefidari
Thanks for making a statement as a board to the email list, it's a helpful communication channel to use this way. I appreciate that a governance based response to allegations against a named trustee, will not be the same as judging a harassment case that should happen elsewhere.
Fae
I don't trust any of the harassement accusations made by Nathalie, Emeric, Marie-Alice and Rémi.
I know for sure that they use this kind of accusations very lightly. They used it on myself too. Marie-Alice wrote to me on July 5th, that my membership was refused due to my long standing relationship with someone who defended a community member and our values. In the right of response of the board published on July 30th the motivation for the refusal of my membership changed to harassement. Well quite convenient when things are not convincing enough or don't work their way, they accuse people of harassement.
Thoses accusations came very late in this affair: It is clearly a smear campaign to divert attention from their own responsabilities.
How can we trust people who are doxxing Wikimedians on regular basis ? (Nathalie did it at least 4 times since early July).
How can we trust people who are publishing information without regards to privacy even when a legal counsel of the WMF ask them to remove it ?
I'm sorry, but I'm asking for help now, these people Nathalie, Emeric, Marie-Alice and Rémi are hurting us, the French community. Yes community members are getting medical leaves (not only this group of people), and are also having real physical consequences.
Yours Sincerely, User:PierreSelim Sysop & Oversighter on Wikimedia Commons,
2017-10-12 14:50 GMT+02:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
Taking María's statement on behalf of the WMF by itself, there are a couple of simple in-line questions about handling governance I would like to make, based on my experience with a number of governance issues both within and outside of Wikimedia related organizations.
I'm sticking to this being a governance case, as the WMF Board can only be expected to make resolutions on the basis of good governance.
On 11 October 2017 at 18:54, María Sefidari kewlshrink@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
We would like to specifically address the allegations related to
harassment
in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation
employed
independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on
the
information presented, the investigation found no support for the allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation
Board
as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
The statement is short on factual detail despite being described as specific. It would be reassuring if the following actions would be considered by the Board, and responded to even if rejected:
- Publish the timeline of events, which would be essential for any
governance review. Several events are implicit in the statement, but absent any facts about when or who, they easily lead to later confusion. 2. Publish the report from the investigators. If necessary this can be redacted, however from emails that have been made a public record so far, it's hard to imagine what now needs to remain confidential. 3. Explain who was contracted to produce the report and why and how they were chosen. 4. Explain what information has been presented, so there can be no doubt whether the WMF and the Board have been presented with all the information available and the steps taken to ensure potential bias in how information was selected was minimized, for example by not pre-selecting who to talk to, rather than giving the investigators a free hand to ask for interviews.
The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation
if
presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the allegations to be without merit.
This closing sentence seem to give a heavy implication that the Board is aware that more information may exist than was used. It seems unhelpful to have an investigation or review that does not take proactive steps to gather information from all the stakeholders identified so that it can stick as a final resolution. In the absence of specifics, it's hard to imagine that anyone outside of the WMF board will be able to understand if you are missing any critical information, yet somehow that appears to be what you are expecting.
On behalf of the Board,
María Sefidari
Thanks for making a statement as a board to the email list, it's a helpful communication channel to use this way. I appreciate that a governance based response to allegations against a named trustee, will not be the same as judging a harassment case that should happen elsewhere.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org