[Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Romaine Wiki-2
Hello all,

On Saturday 15 June 2019 Wikimedia Belgium had its annual General Assembly
in Brussels.

*New board*
Two board members have indicated to step down:
* Afernand74
* SPQRobin

We thank them for their work and valuable input in the past years!
They remain available for advice to the board.

Two board members were up for re-election after their previous terms ended.
Both board members have been re-elected without any votes against them, and
they will keep serving Wikimedia Belgium in their roles.
* Geertivp - president
* Romaine - treasurer

One new board member has been elected without any votes against.
* Taketa - long term Wikipedia editor and organiser of various activities

Welcome Taketa!

The rest of the board remains the same and the board continues the work and
development of our chapter.


*Evaluation behaviour WMF*
As board we have the obligation to inform the General Assembly and other
stakeholders about the developments with our chapter, both the good
developments as well as the bad developments.

A year ago, with our previous General Assembly, we were hopeful to resolve
the issues we then had with on other organisation in the movement, the
Wikimedia Foundation. Sadly we had to inform the General Assembly that
instead of improvements, the behaviour of multiple individuals from the
Wikimedia Foundation is below any standard. This concerns one member of the
grants team and multiple members of the Trust and Safety team, as well as
their supervisors.

On request of the Trust & Safety team no names are mentioned. Below is a
summary of what happened.


*Case 1*
In April 2017 the treasurer of Wikimedia Belgium (Romaine) spoke with our
new grants staff member from the Wikimedia Foundation as WMBE was scheduled
to change from successful project grants in 2017 and earlier years to
Simple Annual Plan grants. During this meeting the plan for WMBE in 2018
was proposed and was fine for the grants staff member. In the Summer of
2017 this had been worked out, and with an online call our annual plan was
considered fine. With the final submission in October 2017, our annual
grants proposal was reviewed by the grants staff member from WMF, had some
minor remarks we fixed, and was considered to be excellent.

In December 2017 we were informed that our grant request (suddenly) was, to
summarise, complete wrong. It contained factual errors (like facts do not
matter), inconsistencies, the comment that Wikimedia France and Wikimedia
Netherlands could take everything over in Belgium, suggesting that Belgium
has no culture (this is a serious insult to us), and much more.
(For your reference: Wikimedia Belgium had over 90 events and activities in
2017, including a photo contest, education program, GLAM program with
content donations, workshops and edit-a-thons, and more.)

It raised us a lot of questions, which we asked, but our grants member of
WMF refused to seriously answer them.

Even with our lack of information and received insults, we tried to be
constructive and before Christmas we proposed to the grants staff member
that we would re-write during the Christmas holidays our annual plan (as
the staff member had said many times we could improve it). With the e-mail
following from the grants member of WMF this proposal was not rejected. So
during the two weeks of the Christmas holidays we spent many days, together
with the help from another experienced chapter representative, re-writing
our annual plan. After the Christmas holidays, we were ready, and the
response from the grants member from WMF was then that the re-written
version could not be taken into account...

After some further e-mails with this staff member we concluded as WMBE mid
January 2018 that a collaboration with this individual from WMF is
impossible and we banned this individual from ever contacting us again and
we never communicated ever with this person again.

The supervisor of this staff member has been informed by us about what
happened, and refused to even investigate the situation.

A colleague from the staff member took over and we received our budget for
2018. Later during 2018 and 2019 this WMF staff member helped us very well
with questions, provided useful feedback and the annual plan for 2019 which
was approved. We are now happy with this collaboration.


*Case 2*
During the Wikimedia Conference in April 2018 we still had many questions
and our treasurer spoke with various other affiliates if they had advice,
good practices, etc etc, so that we could improve our future annual plans.
Instead of that good advice was given, they shared their similar bad
experiences they had in the past years with our former grants person from
WMF. Many of them indicated that they do not want the feedback/criticism to
be public as they feel that their budget would be cut by WMF as result of
it.

With multiple chapter representatives we started to collect the feedback so
that we could come up with some recommendations for improvements for both
the WMF processes regarding grants as well as recommendations for
affiliates for how to write better annual plans.

Our former grants person from WMF heard about the initiative and started to
tell bad (untrue) stories about WMBE's treasurer to bring him in discredit.
Multiple people have testified that our former grants person was doing
this, gossip like that WMBE's treasurer was planning to attack that grants
person. The Trust & Safety team heard about it and drew immediately the
conclusion that the gossip was true, without checking the facts, without
even talking to any of the involved individuals, and asked WMBE's treasurer
not to approach or contact the former grants person. (To be crystal clear:
there was never ever a plan to contact the grants person from WMF at all.)

Even after the Trust & Safety team spoke with WMBE's treasure, the gossip
continued, causing a very unsafe conference space. A member of the Trust &
Safety team was later informed about the ongoing gossip and refused to take
any action to stop it, indicating not to take it seriously.


*Case 3*
During Wikimania 2018, WMBE's treasurer was asked to help the organisers of
Wikimania in Cape Town to help and assist wherever needed. One of the tasks
was to bring stuff from A to B on request. Everything seemed to go fine.

Halfway the conference, WMBE's treasurer was casually approached by a
member of the Trust and Safety team with a question to have a chat. A
second team member came and they took an elevator together. In the elevator
the team members made jokes and were laughing. As soon as they were in the
room, it was made clear that the Trust & Safety team had received
complaints about WMBE's treasurer.

The main complaint was: being in the same (large) room as the grants member
of WMF. The complainant was the grants member of WMF, and this person
claimed that WMBE's treasurer had said something and that the grants member
from WMF had been highly distressed resulting in not being able to do the
presentation (later in that session) well.

The situation was that WMBE's treasurer was asked to bring something to a
room where a session just started (such requests happen many times during
the conference, the grants person who complained was not presenting at that
time), the materials were handed to someone in the back of the room and he
left the room silently as quickly as possible. Multiple people present in
that session have testified that he did not speak while bringing materials
to the room, and they also testified that the presentation by the grants
person from WMF went reasonable well.
Also, during lunch WMBE's treasurer was sitting somewhere very visible to
everyone, where the grants person from WMF came standing next to the
treasurer, approached from the front. If the grants person from WMF really
gets highly distressed by his presence, this person would not have done
that.

The Trust & Safety team blindly believed the statements made by their WMF
colleague, the team did not ask witnesses in the room about what happened,
all the information here above was provided to the Trust & Safety team, but
the Trust & Safety team fully ignored this information and the witnesses
who say otherwise.

Three additional anonymous complaints were:
* speaking to loud
* standing to close
* having touched someone's hand/arm

It must be noted that *none* of the people that complained to the Trust &
Safety team had indicated to WMBE's treasurer to experience anything as
problem.
Also, WMBE's treasurer has as disability that he hears less, does not hear
well what the height of his volume is (but still trying to not to speak too
loud), and with bad acoustics has to stand closer to people to hear them
well. The Trust & Safety team was informed about this during the meeting.
Also in the local culture where he comes from touching is a normal thing.
Also many people that have been frequently with WMBE's treasurer at the
conference have indicated that he did not speak too loud.

During the meeting the Trust & Safety team told that they already had
informed everyone in the organising team that they demanded WMBE's
treasurer must stop helping in organising Wikimania 2018, meaning that they
already had drawn the conclusion even before speaking with him.

They also indicated that they "had to do something" so they could show
the complainants
that they do something when complaints are received, even while their
decision did not solve/improve the complaints at all. The Trust & Safety
team refused to think about real solutions, they refused to organise a
dialogue to solve the complaints, they refused to mediate, they promised to
organise a meeting with a supervisor, but that they never did. It also
became clear they have zero feeling with people with autism. The Trust &
Safety said they could not share any more information about what happened
because of the privacy of the complainants.

During the conference WMBE's treasurer made it public, to prevent having to
tell emotionally what happened, as well as for transparency reasons. This
did not take away that he felt ever since that chat highly unsafe as result
by the behaviour of the Trust & Safety team, and still continues up to
today, as well as he also had been five weeks ill after the conference
because of this.

Many people at the conference indicated to disagree with the decision of
the Trust & Safety team, including WMF staff members and Wikimania's
organising team. During the conference many of them approached the Trust &
Safety team about it, various of them also proposing other solutions that.
In these talks the Trust & Safety team shared a lot more details which they
refused to share with WMBE's treasurer. Also the Trust & Safety team told
that he had been warned before (which is not true), as well as exaggerating
and framing what supposedly had happened.


*Afterwards*
After Wikimania the Trust & Safety team received an e-mail from WMBE's
treasurer with a more detailed overview of what happened, including the
many witnesses who claim differently. But all of this was fully ignored by
the Trust & Safety team. After the conference nothing had been heard from
the Trust & Safety team, until mid December 2018.

In the first two weeks of December 2018 WMBE's treasurer received multiple
e-mails from WMF staff members, including strangely in what was written a
farewell and thank you for all the work. Apparently the Trust & Safety team
had shared their new decision with other departments, while actual
stakeholders were not informed.

About a week later both the treasurer of WMBE as the president of WMBE (but
none of the other organisations he is active for) received an e-mail in
what the Trust & Safety team indicates to have received further complaints:
- First they refer to the situation in December 2017-January 2018
concerning the interaction with the former grants person from WMF.
Apparently the Trust & Safety team fully has ignored all the insults at the
address of our chapter and country. Also the e-mail reads largely like the
grants person itself had written the e-mail.
- Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to ever contact WMBE's
former grants person at WMF (one way only!) (Even while WMBE had banned
every contact with this person already in January 2018.)
- And they forbid to have contact with WMF grants grants team for about two
years. (Even while the contact with all the other members of the grants
team was going fine, even receiving various compliments. )

Still it was decided by Wikimedia Belgium to keep WMBE's treasurer as
treasurer of WMBE.

- Someone at the conference saw WMBE's treasurer with a mascot and asked
the name of the mascot. Answer: "Wendy the Weasel", clearly indicating a
female name. The question that followed was what the gender was of the
mascot. WMBE's treasurer was thinking that this was just said, and replied
that as there are no outer organs the mascot must be female. (Having asked
around, in the part of the world where WMBE's treasurer lives this is not
considered a problem, but maybe this is differently elsewhere and is there
a taboo.)
- Someone had indicated that WMBE's treasurer has been standing in the way
of that person and blocking the complainants path at Wikimania. It was a
space of about 1.5 to 2 metres, where also multiple other people where
standing, and people passing by were asked question, but everyone who
wanted to pass by could do so.
- Someone has told that WMBE's treasurer would have said that he would
visit conferences "to pick up girls". Everybody who knows WMBE's treasurer
knows this is nonsense. Some contest: WMBE's treasurer has someone he loves
in his home country with zero interest of that kind in anyone else, and
falls in the category of LGBT+ and does not fall on the women at the
conferences. It must be noticed extremely suggestive interpretations of
other people (that do not have the regular impressions, like due being
LGBT+), have far reaching effects as conclusions. Such is an insult.
- Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to be present at events
funded directly/indirectly by WMF for two years.


Again it must be noticed that the Trust & Safety team for the third time on
a row refuses to talk with the individual who it concerns first, before
drawing any conclusions. The Trust & Safety team comes in their e-mail with
a lot of assumptions based on loose sand. They also claim that WMBE's
treasurer fails to assume good faith.
In an e-mail to the presidents of two chapters they said that "they know
how he thinks", followed by a lot of nonsense and false claims. The Trust &
Safety team does not assume good faith themselves if they write that.


The Trust & Safety team provided in their communication zero examples of
where the Friendly Space Policy has been breached.



The situation of WMBE's treasurer and the Trust & Safety team has been
reviewed by an independent professional with expertise in complaints
handling. The conclusion of this expert: almost everything that the Trust &
Safety team could have done wrong in handling complaints, they did do
wrong. Many basic principles in complaint handling and conflict resolution
have been ignored by the Trust & Safety team. In addition to this, they
communicate very intimidating as well as with treats.

The way how they work/communicate gives the impression like a staff member
of WMF is more worth than a volunteer from the community.


Two chapters have reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation, indicating that
the way how the Trust & Safety team was operating is not appropriate, but
WMF refuses to take these concerns seriously and has ignored this fully.
Again the Trust & Safety team refuses to work together on actual solutions.


To summarise, feedback/information from WMBE's treasurer has been ignored
by WMF, feedback from the president of WMBE has been ignored by WMF,
feedback from the president and director of WMNL have been ignored by WMF,
feedback from other staff members in WMF have been ignored by WMF, feedback
from many community members from the movement have been ignored.

Because of the behaviour of the trust & Safety team that causes for
everyone in the movement an unsafe place, WMBE's treasurer has decided
to indefinitely
stop attending WMF funded events.


At the General Assembly it was requested to request an internal audit in
WMF to bring all the problems there to the light.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Thomas Townsend
Am I right in thinking that this email, containing a long account of
the alleged poor treatment of the Treasurer of WMBE, referred to
throughout in the third person, was in fact written by that person?

The Turnip

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 10:00, Romaine Wiki <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hello all,
>
> On Saturday 15 June 2019 Wikimedia Belgium had its annual General Assembly
> in Brussels.
>
> *New board*
> Two board members have indicated to step down:
> * Afernand74
> * SPQRobin
>
> We thank them for their work and valuable input in the past years!
> They remain available for advice to the board.
>
> Two board members were up for re-election after their previous terms ended.
> Both board members have been re-elected without any votes against them, and
> they will keep serving Wikimedia Belgium in their roles.
> * Geertivp - president
> * Romaine - treasurer
>
> One new board member has been elected without any votes against.
> * Taketa - long term Wikipedia editor and organiser of various activities
>
> Welcome Taketa!
>
> The rest of the board remains the same and the board continues the work and
> development of our chapter.
>
>
> *Evaluation behaviour WMF*
> As board we have the obligation to inform the General Assembly and other
> stakeholders about the developments with our chapter, both the good
> developments as well as the bad developments.
>
> A year ago, with our previous General Assembly, we were hopeful to resolve
> the issues we then had with on other organisation in the movement, the
> Wikimedia Foundation. Sadly we had to inform the General Assembly that
> instead of improvements, the behaviour of multiple individuals from the
> Wikimedia Foundation is below any standard. This concerns one member of the
> grants team and multiple members of the Trust and Safety team, as well as
> their supervisors.
>
> On request of the Trust & Safety team no names are mentioned. Below is a
> summary of what happened.
>
>
> *Case 1*
> In April 2017 the treasurer of Wikimedia Belgium (Romaine) spoke with our
> new grants staff member from the Wikimedia Foundation as WMBE was scheduled
> to change from successful project grants in 2017 and earlier years to
> Simple Annual Plan grants. During this meeting the plan for WMBE in 2018
> was proposed and was fine for the grants staff member. In the Summer of
> 2017 this had been worked out, and with an online call our annual plan was
> considered fine. With the final submission in October 2017, our annual
> grants proposal was reviewed by the grants staff member from WMF, had some
> minor remarks we fixed, and was considered to be excellent.
>
> In December 2017 we were informed that our grant request (suddenly) was, to
> summarise, complete wrong. It contained factual errors (like facts do not
> matter), inconsistencies, the comment that Wikimedia France and Wikimedia
> Netherlands could take everything over in Belgium, suggesting that Belgium
> has no culture (this is a serious insult to us), and much more.
> (For your reference: Wikimedia Belgium had over 90 events and activities in
> 2017, including a photo contest, education program, GLAM program with
> content donations, workshops and edit-a-thons, and more.)
>
> It raised us a lot of questions, which we asked, but our grants member of
> WMF refused to seriously answer them.
>
> Even with our lack of information and received insults, we tried to be
> constructive and before Christmas we proposed to the grants staff member
> that we would re-write during the Christmas holidays our annual plan (as
> the staff member had said many times we could improve it). With the e-mail
> following from the grants member of WMF this proposal was not rejected. So
> during the two weeks of the Christmas holidays we spent many days, together
> with the help from another experienced chapter representative, re-writing
> our annual plan. After the Christmas holidays, we were ready, and the
> response from the grants member from WMF was then that the re-written
> version could not be taken into account...
>
> After some further e-mails with this staff member we concluded as WMBE mid
> January 2018 that a collaboration with this individual from WMF is
> impossible and we banned this individual from ever contacting us again and
> we never communicated ever with this person again.
>
> The supervisor of this staff member has been informed by us about what
> happened, and refused to even investigate the situation.
>
> A colleague from the staff member took over and we received our budget for
> 2018. Later during 2018 and 2019 this WMF staff member helped us very well
> with questions, provided useful feedback and the annual plan for 2019 which
> was approved. We are now happy with this collaboration.
>
>
> *Case 2*
> During the Wikimedia Conference in April 2018 we still had many questions
> and our treasurer spoke with various other affiliates if they had advice,
> good practices, etc etc, so that we could improve our future annual plans.
> Instead of that good advice was given, they shared their similar bad
> experiences they had in the past years with our former grants person from
> WMF. Many of them indicated that they do not want the feedback/criticism to
> be public as they feel that their budget would be cut by WMF as result of
> it.
>
> With multiple chapter representatives we started to collect the feedback so
> that we could come up with some recommendations for improvements for both
> the WMF processes regarding grants as well as recommendations for
> affiliates for how to write better annual plans.
>
> Our former grants person from WMF heard about the initiative and started to
> tell bad (untrue) stories about WMBE's treasurer to bring him in discredit.
> Multiple people have testified that our former grants person was doing
> this, gossip like that WMBE's treasurer was planning to attack that grants
> person. The Trust & Safety team heard about it and drew immediately the
> conclusion that the gossip was true, without checking the facts, without
> even talking to any of the involved individuals, and asked WMBE's treasurer
> not to approach or contact the former grants person. (To be crystal clear:
> there was never ever a plan to contact the grants person from WMF at all.)
>
> Even after the Trust & Safety team spoke with WMBE's treasure, the gossip
> continued, causing a very unsafe conference space. A member of the Trust &
> Safety team was later informed about the ongoing gossip and refused to take
> any action to stop it, indicating not to take it seriously.
>
>
> *Case 3*
> During Wikimania 2018, WMBE's treasurer was asked to help the organisers of
> Wikimania in Cape Town to help and assist wherever needed. One of the tasks
> was to bring stuff from A to B on request. Everything seemed to go fine.
>
> Halfway the conference, WMBE's treasurer was casually approached by a
> member of the Trust and Safety team with a question to have a chat. A
> second team member came and they took an elevator together. In the elevator
> the team members made jokes and were laughing. As soon as they were in the
> room, it was made clear that the Trust & Safety team had received
> complaints about WMBE's treasurer.
>
> The main complaint was: being in the same (large) room as the grants member
> of WMF. The complainant was the grants member of WMF, and this person
> claimed that WMBE's treasurer had said something and that the grants member
> from WMF had been highly distressed resulting in not being able to do the
> presentation (later in that session) well.
>
> The situation was that WMBE's treasurer was asked to bring something to a
> room where a session just started (such requests happen many times during
> the conference, the grants person who complained was not presenting at that
> time), the materials were handed to someone in the back of the room and he
> left the room silently as quickly as possible. Multiple people present in
> that session have testified that he did not speak while bringing materials
> to the room, and they also testified that the presentation by the grants
> person from WMF went reasonable well.
> Also, during lunch WMBE's treasurer was sitting somewhere very visible to
> everyone, where the grants person from WMF came standing next to the
> treasurer, approached from the front. If the grants person from WMF really
> gets highly distressed by his presence, this person would not have done
> that.
>
> The Trust & Safety team blindly believed the statements made by their WMF
> colleague, the team did not ask witnesses in the room about what happened,
> all the information here above was provided to the Trust & Safety team, but
> the Trust & Safety team fully ignored this information and the witnesses
> who say otherwise.
>
> Three additional anonymous complaints were:
> * speaking to loud
> * standing to close
> * having touched someone's hand/arm
>
> It must be noted that *none* of the people that complained to the Trust &
> Safety team had indicated to WMBE's treasurer to experience anything as
> problem.
> Also, WMBE's treasurer has as disability that he hears less, does not hear
> well what the height of his volume is (but still trying to not to speak too
> loud), and with bad acoustics has to stand closer to people to hear them
> well. The Trust & Safety team was informed about this during the meeting.
> Also in the local culture where he comes from touching is a normal thing.
> Also many people that have been frequently with WMBE's treasurer at the
> conference have indicated that he did not speak too loud.
>
> During the meeting the Trust & Safety team told that they already had
> informed everyone in the organising team that they demanded WMBE's
> treasurer must stop helping in organising Wikimania 2018, meaning that they
> already had drawn the conclusion even before speaking with him.
>
> They also indicated that they "had to do something" so they could show
> the complainants
> that they do something when complaints are received, even while their
> decision did not solve/improve the complaints at all. The Trust & Safety
> team refused to think about real solutions, they refused to organise a
> dialogue to solve the complaints, they refused to mediate, they promised to
> organise a meeting with a supervisor, but that they never did. It also
> became clear they have zero feeling with people with autism. The Trust &
> Safety said they could not share any more information about what happened
> because of the privacy of the complainants.
>
> During the conference WMBE's treasurer made it public, to prevent having to
> tell emotionally what happened, as well as for transparency reasons. This
> did not take away that he felt ever since that chat highly unsafe as result
> by the behaviour of the Trust & Safety team, and still continues up to
> today, as well as he also had been five weeks ill after the conference
> because of this.
>
> Many people at the conference indicated to disagree with the decision of
> the Trust & Safety team, including WMF staff members and Wikimania's
> organising team. During the conference many of them approached the Trust &
> Safety team about it, various of them also proposing other solutions that.
> In these talks the Trust & Safety team shared a lot more details which they
> refused to share with WMBE's treasurer. Also the Trust & Safety team told
> that he had been warned before (which is not true), as well as exaggerating
> and framing what supposedly had happened.
>
>
> *Afterwards*
> After Wikimania the Trust & Safety team received an e-mail from WMBE's
> treasurer with a more detailed overview of what happened, including the
> many witnesses who claim differently. But all of this was fully ignored by
> the Trust & Safety team. After the conference nothing had been heard from
> the Trust & Safety team, until mid December 2018.
>
> In the first two weeks of December 2018 WMBE's treasurer received multiple
> e-mails from WMF staff members, including strangely in what was written a
> farewell and thank you for all the work. Apparently the Trust & Safety team
> had shared their new decision with other departments, while actual
> stakeholders were not informed.
>
> About a week later both the treasurer of WMBE as the president of WMBE (but
> none of the other organisations he is active for) received an e-mail in
> what the Trust & Safety team indicates to have received further complaints:
> - First they refer to the situation in December 2017-January 2018
> concerning the interaction with the former grants person from WMF.
> Apparently the Trust & Safety team fully has ignored all the insults at the
> address of our chapter and country. Also the e-mail reads largely like the
> grants person itself had written the e-mail.
> - Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to ever contact WMBE's
> former grants person at WMF (one way only!) (Even while WMBE had banned
> every contact with this person already in January 2018.)
> - And they forbid to have contact with WMF grants grants team for about two
> years. (Even while the contact with all the other members of the grants
> team was going fine, even receiving various compliments. )
>
> Still it was decided by Wikimedia Belgium to keep WMBE's treasurer as
> treasurer of WMBE.
>
> - Someone at the conference saw WMBE's treasurer with a mascot and asked
> the name of the mascot. Answer: "Wendy the Weasel", clearly indicating a
> female name. The question that followed was what the gender was of the
> mascot. WMBE's treasurer was thinking that this was just said, and replied
> that as there are no outer organs the mascot must be female. (Having asked
> around, in the part of the world where WMBE's treasurer lives this is not
> considered a problem, but maybe this is differently elsewhere and is there
> a taboo.)
> - Someone had indicated that WMBE's treasurer has been standing in the way
> of that person and blocking the complainants path at Wikimania. It was a
> space of about 1.5 to 2 metres, where also multiple other people where
> standing, and people passing by were asked question, but everyone who
> wanted to pass by could do so.
> - Someone has told that WMBE's treasurer would have said that he would
> visit conferences "to pick up girls". Everybody who knows WMBE's treasurer
> knows this is nonsense. Some contest: WMBE's treasurer has someone he loves
> in his home country with zero interest of that kind in anyone else, and
> falls in the category of LGBT+ and does not fall on the women at the
> conferences. It must be noticed extremely suggestive interpretations of
> other people (that do not have the regular impressions, like due being
> LGBT+), have far reaching effects as conclusions. Such is an insult.
> - Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to be present at events
> funded directly/indirectly by WMF for two years.
>
>
> Again it must be noticed that the Trust & Safety team for the third time on
> a row refuses to talk with the individual who it concerns first, before
> drawing any conclusions. The Trust & Safety team comes in their e-mail with
> a lot of assumptions based on loose sand. They also claim that WMBE's
> treasurer fails to assume good faith.
> In an e-mail to the presidents of two chapters they said that "they know
> how he thinks", followed by a lot of nonsense and false claims. The Trust &
> Safety team does not assume good faith themselves if they write that.
>
>
> The Trust & Safety team provided in their communication zero examples of
> where the Friendly Space Policy has been breached.
>
>
>
> The situation of WMBE's treasurer and the Trust & Safety team has been
> reviewed by an independent professional with expertise in complaints
> handling. The conclusion of this expert: almost everything that the Trust &
> Safety team could have done wrong in handling complaints, they did do
> wrong. Many basic principles in complaint handling and conflict resolution
> have been ignored by the Trust & Safety team. In addition to this, they
> communicate very intimidating as well as with treats.
>
> The way how they work/communicate gives the impression like a staff member
> of WMF is more worth than a volunteer from the community.
>
>
> Two chapters have reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation, indicating that
> the way how the Trust & Safety team was operating is not appropriate, but
> WMF refuses to take these concerns seriously and has ignored this fully.
> Again the Trust & Safety team refuses to work together on actual solutions.
>
>
> To summarise, feedback/information from WMBE's treasurer has been ignored
> by WMF, feedback from the president of WMBE has been ignored by WMF,
> feedback from the president and director of WMNL have been ignored by WMF,
> feedback from other staff members in WMF have been ignored by WMF, feedback
> from many community members from the movement have been ignored.
>
> Because of the behaviour of the trust & Safety team that causes for
> everyone in the movement an unsafe place, WMBE's treasurer has decided
> to indefinitely
> stop attending WMF funded events.
>
>
> At the General Assembly it was requested to request an internal audit in
> WMF to bring all the problems there to the light.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Isaac Olatunde
Considering that it was sent by that person, one may reasonably conclude
that it was written by them. That being said, I do not want to believe that
it was not reviewed and approved by the governing board (assuming it was
written by that person). BUT if it was written by another person, reviewed
and approved by the board why is the involved person sending this email on
behalf of WMBE? Just curious.

Regards,

Isaac

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:27 PM Thomas Townsend <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Am I right in thinking that this email, containing a long account of
> the alleged poor treatment of the Treasurer of WMBE, referred to
> throughout in the third person, was in fact written by that person?
>
> The Turnip
>
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 10:00, Romaine Wiki <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > On Saturday 15 June 2019 Wikimedia Belgium had its annual General
> Assembly
> > in Brussels.
> >
> > *New board*
> > Two board members have indicated to step down:
> > * Afernand74
> > * SPQRobin
> >
> > We thank them for their work and valuable input in the past years!
> > They remain available for advice to the board.
> >
> > Two board members were up for re-election after their previous terms
> ended.
> > Both board members have been re-elected without any votes against them,
> and
> > they will keep serving Wikimedia Belgium in their roles.
> > * Geertivp - president
> > * Romaine - treasurer
> >
> > One new board member has been elected without any votes against.
> > * Taketa - long term Wikipedia editor and organiser of various activities
> >
> > Welcome Taketa!
> >
> > The rest of the board remains the same and the board continues the work
> and
> > development of our chapter.
> >
> >
> > *Evaluation behaviour WMF*
> > As board we have the obligation to inform the General Assembly and other
> > stakeholders about the developments with our chapter, both the good
> > developments as well as the bad developments.
> >
> > A year ago, with our previous General Assembly, we were hopeful to
> resolve
> > the issues we then had with on other organisation in the movement, the
> > Wikimedia Foundation. Sadly we had to inform the General Assembly that
> > instead of improvements, the behaviour of multiple individuals from the
> > Wikimedia Foundation is below any standard. This concerns one member of
> the
> > grants team and multiple members of the Trust and Safety team, as well as
> > their supervisors.
> >
> > On request of the Trust & Safety team no names are mentioned. Below is a
> > summary of what happened.
> >
> >
> > *Case 1*
> > In April 2017 the treasurer of Wikimedia Belgium (Romaine) spoke with our
> > new grants staff member from the Wikimedia Foundation as WMBE was
> scheduled
> > to change from successful project grants in 2017 and earlier years to
> > Simple Annual Plan grants. During this meeting the plan for WMBE in 2018
> > was proposed and was fine for the grants staff member. In the Summer of
> > 2017 this had been worked out, and with an online call our annual plan
> was
> > considered fine. With the final submission in October 2017, our annual
> > grants proposal was reviewed by the grants staff member from WMF, had
> some
> > minor remarks we fixed, and was considered to be excellent.
> >
> > In December 2017 we were informed that our grant request (suddenly) was,
> to
> > summarise, complete wrong. It contained factual errors (like facts do not
> > matter), inconsistencies, the comment that Wikimedia France and Wikimedia
> > Netherlands could take everything over in Belgium, suggesting that
> Belgium
> > has no culture (this is a serious insult to us), and much more.
> > (For your reference: Wikimedia Belgium had over 90 events and activities
> in
> > 2017, including a photo contest, education program, GLAM program with
> > content donations, workshops and edit-a-thons, and more.)
> >
> > It raised us a lot of questions, which we asked, but our grants member of
> > WMF refused to seriously answer them.
> >
> > Even with our lack of information and received insults, we tried to be
> > constructive and before Christmas we proposed to the grants staff member
> > that we would re-write during the Christmas holidays our annual plan (as
> > the staff member had said many times we could improve it). With the
> e-mail
> > following from the grants member of WMF this proposal was not rejected.
> So
> > during the two weeks of the Christmas holidays we spent many days,
> together
> > with the help from another experienced chapter representative, re-writing
> > our annual plan. After the Christmas holidays, we were ready, and the
> > response from the grants member from WMF was then that the re-written
> > version could not be taken into account...
> >
> > After some further e-mails with this staff member we concluded as WMBE
> mid
> > January 2018 that a collaboration with this individual from WMF is
> > impossible and we banned this individual from ever contacting us again
> and
> > we never communicated ever with this person again.
> >
> > The supervisor of this staff member has been informed by us about what
> > happened, and refused to even investigate the situation.
> >
> > A colleague from the staff member took over and we received our budget
> for
> > 2018. Later during 2018 and 2019 this WMF staff member helped us very
> well
> > with questions, provided useful feedback and the annual plan for 2019
> which
> > was approved. We are now happy with this collaboration.
> >
> >
> > *Case 2*
> > During the Wikimedia Conference in April 2018 we still had many questions
> > and our treasurer spoke with various other affiliates if they had advice,
> > good practices, etc etc, so that we could improve our future annual
> plans.
> > Instead of that good advice was given, they shared their similar bad
> > experiences they had in the past years with our former grants person from
> > WMF. Many of them indicated that they do not want the feedback/criticism
> to
> > be public as they feel that their budget would be cut by WMF as result of
> > it.
> >
> > With multiple chapter representatives we started to collect the feedback
> so
> > that we could come up with some recommendations for improvements for both
> > the WMF processes regarding grants as well as recommendations for
> > affiliates for how to write better annual plans.
> >
> > Our former grants person from WMF heard about the initiative and started
> to
> > tell bad (untrue) stories about WMBE's treasurer to bring him in
> discredit.
> > Multiple people have testified that our former grants person was doing
> > this, gossip like that WMBE's treasurer was planning to attack that
> grants
> > person. The Trust & Safety team heard about it and drew immediately the
> > conclusion that the gossip was true, without checking the facts, without
> > even talking to any of the involved individuals, and asked WMBE's
> treasurer
> > not to approach or contact the former grants person. (To be crystal
> clear:
> > there was never ever a plan to contact the grants person from WMF at
> all.)
> >
> > Even after the Trust & Safety team spoke with WMBE's treasure, the gossip
> > continued, causing a very unsafe conference space. A member of the Trust
> &
> > Safety team was later informed about the ongoing gossip and refused to
> take
> > any action to stop it, indicating not to take it seriously.
> >
> >
> > *Case 3*
> > During Wikimania 2018, WMBE's treasurer was asked to help the organisers
> of
> > Wikimania in Cape Town to help and assist wherever needed. One of the
> tasks
> > was to bring stuff from A to B on request. Everything seemed to go fine.
> >
> > Halfway the conference, WMBE's treasurer was casually approached by a
> > member of the Trust and Safety team with a question to have a chat. A
> > second team member came and they took an elevator together. In the
> elevator
> > the team members made jokes and were laughing. As soon as they were in
> the
> > room, it was made clear that the Trust & Safety team had received
> > complaints about WMBE's treasurer.
> >
> > The main complaint was: being in the same (large) room as the grants
> member
> > of WMF. The complainant was the grants member of WMF, and this person
> > claimed that WMBE's treasurer had said something and that the grants
> member
> > from WMF had been highly distressed resulting in not being able to do the
> > presentation (later in that session) well.
> >
> > The situation was that WMBE's treasurer was asked to bring something to a
> > room where a session just started (such requests happen many times during
> > the conference, the grants person who complained was not presenting at
> that
> > time), the materials were handed to someone in the back of the room and
> he
> > left the room silently as quickly as possible. Multiple people present in
> > that session have testified that he did not speak while bringing
> materials
> > to the room, and they also testified that the presentation by the grants
> > person from WMF went reasonable well.
> > Also, during lunch WMBE's treasurer was sitting somewhere very visible to
> > everyone, where the grants person from WMF came standing next to the
> > treasurer, approached from the front. If the grants person from WMF
> really
> > gets highly distressed by his presence, this person would not have done
> > that.
> >
> > The Trust & Safety team blindly believed the statements made by their WMF
> > colleague, the team did not ask witnesses in the room about what
> happened,
> > all the information here above was provided to the Trust & Safety team,
> but
> > the Trust & Safety team fully ignored this information and the witnesses
> > who say otherwise.
> >
> > Three additional anonymous complaints were:
> > * speaking to loud
> > * standing to close
> > * having touched someone's hand/arm
> >
> > It must be noted that *none* of the people that complained to the Trust &
> > Safety team had indicated to WMBE's treasurer to experience anything as
> > problem.
> > Also, WMBE's treasurer has as disability that he hears less, does not
> hear
> > well what the height of his volume is (but still trying to not to speak
> too
> > loud), and with bad acoustics has to stand closer to people to hear them
> > well. The Trust & Safety team was informed about this during the meeting.
> > Also in the local culture where he comes from touching is a normal thing.
> > Also many people that have been frequently with WMBE's treasurer at the
> > conference have indicated that he did not speak too loud.
> >
> > During the meeting the Trust & Safety team told that they already had
> > informed everyone in the organising team that they demanded WMBE's
> > treasurer must stop helping in organising Wikimania 2018, meaning that
> they
> > already had drawn the conclusion even before speaking with him.
> >
> > They also indicated that they "had to do something" so they could show
> > the complainants
> > that they do something when complaints are received, even while their
> > decision did not solve/improve the complaints at all. The Trust & Safety
> > team refused to think about real solutions, they refused to organise a
> > dialogue to solve the complaints, they refused to mediate, they promised
> to
> > organise a meeting with a supervisor, but that they never did. It also
> > became clear they have zero feeling with people with autism. The Trust &
> > Safety said they could not share any more information about what happened
> > because of the privacy of the complainants.
> >
> > During the conference WMBE's treasurer made it public, to prevent having
> to
> > tell emotionally what happened, as well as for transparency reasons. This
> > did not take away that he felt ever since that chat highly unsafe as
> result
> > by the behaviour of the Trust & Safety team, and still continues up to
> > today, as well as he also had been five weeks ill after the conference
> > because of this.
> >
> > Many people at the conference indicated to disagree with the decision of
> > the Trust & Safety team, including WMF staff members and Wikimania's
> > organising team. During the conference many of them approached the Trust
> &
> > Safety team about it, various of them also proposing other solutions
> that.
> > In these talks the Trust & Safety team shared a lot more details which
> they
> > refused to share with WMBE's treasurer. Also the Trust & Safety team told
> > that he had been warned before (which is not true), as well as
> exaggerating
> > and framing what supposedly had happened.
> >
> >
> > *Afterwards*
> > After Wikimania the Trust & Safety team received an e-mail from WMBE's
> > treasurer with a more detailed overview of what happened, including the
> > many witnesses who claim differently. But all of this was fully ignored
> by
> > the Trust & Safety team. After the conference nothing had been heard from
> > the Trust & Safety team, until mid December 2018.
> >
> > In the first two weeks of December 2018 WMBE's treasurer received
> multiple
> > e-mails from WMF staff members, including strangely in what was written a
> > farewell and thank you for all the work. Apparently the Trust & Safety
> team
> > had shared their new decision with other departments, while actual
> > stakeholders were not informed.
> >
> > About a week later both the treasurer of WMBE as the president of WMBE
> (but
> > none of the other organisations he is active for) received an e-mail in
> > what the Trust & Safety team indicates to have received further
> complaints:
> > - First they refer to the situation in December 2017-January 2018
> > concerning the interaction with the former grants person from WMF.
> > Apparently the Trust & Safety team fully has ignored all the insults at
> the
> > address of our chapter and country. Also the e-mail reads largely like
> the
> > grants person itself had written the e-mail.
> > - Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to ever contact WMBE's
> > former grants person at WMF (one way only!) (Even while WMBE had banned
> > every contact with this person already in January 2018.)
> > - And they forbid to have contact with WMF grants grants team for about
> two
> > years. (Even while the contact with all the other members of the grants
> > team was going fine, even receiving various compliments. )
> >
> > Still it was decided by Wikimedia Belgium to keep WMBE's treasurer as
> > treasurer of WMBE.
> >
> > - Someone at the conference saw WMBE's treasurer with a mascot and asked
> > the name of the mascot. Answer: "Wendy the Weasel", clearly indicating a
> > female name. The question that followed was what the gender was of the
> > mascot. WMBE's treasurer was thinking that this was just said, and
> replied
> > that as there are no outer organs the mascot must be female. (Having
> asked
> > around, in the part of the world where WMBE's treasurer lives this is not
> > considered a problem, but maybe this is differently elsewhere and is
> there
> > a taboo.)
> > - Someone had indicated that WMBE's treasurer has been standing in the
> way
> > of that person and blocking the complainants path at Wikimania. It was a
> > space of about 1.5 to 2 metres, where also multiple other people where
> > standing, and people passing by were asked question, but everyone who
> > wanted to pass by could do so.
> > - Someone has told that WMBE's treasurer would have said that he would
> > visit conferences "to pick up girls". Everybody who knows WMBE's
> treasurer
> > knows this is nonsense. Some contest: WMBE's treasurer has someone he
> loves
> > in his home country with zero interest of that kind in anyone else, and
> > falls in the category of LGBT+ and does not fall on the women at the
> > conferences. It must be noticed extremely suggestive interpretations of
> > other people (that do not have the regular impressions, like due being
> > LGBT+), have far reaching effects as conclusions. Such is an insult.
> > - Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to be present at events
> > funded directly/indirectly by WMF for two years.
> >
> >
> > Again it must be noticed that the Trust & Safety team for the third time
> on
> > a row refuses to talk with the individual who it concerns first, before
> > drawing any conclusions. The Trust & Safety team comes in their e-mail
> with
> > a lot of assumptions based on loose sand. They also claim that WMBE's
> > treasurer fails to assume good faith.
> > In an e-mail to the presidents of two chapters they said that "they know
> > how he thinks", followed by a lot of nonsense and false claims. The
> Trust &
> > Safety team does not assume good faith themselves if they write that.
> >
> >
> > The Trust & Safety team provided in their communication zero examples of
> > where the Friendly Space Policy has been breached.
> >
> >
> >
> > The situation of WMBE's treasurer and the Trust & Safety team has been
> > reviewed by an independent professional with expertise in complaints
> > handling. The conclusion of this expert: almost everything that the
> Trust &
> > Safety team could have done wrong in handling complaints, they did do
> > wrong. Many basic principles in complaint handling and conflict
> resolution
> > have been ignored by the Trust & Safety team. In addition to this, they
> > communicate very intimidating as well as with treats.
> >
> > The way how they work/communicate gives the impression like a staff
> member
> > of WMF is more worth than a volunteer from the community.
> >
> >
> > Two chapters have reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation, indicating
> that
> > the way how the Trust & Safety team was operating is not appropriate, but
> > WMF refuses to take these concerns seriously and has ignored this fully.
> > Again the Trust & Safety team refuses to work together on actual
> solutions.
> >
> >
> > To summarise, feedback/information from WMBE's treasurer has been ignored
> > by WMF, feedback from the president of WMBE has been ignored by WMF,
> > feedback from the president and director of WMNL have been ignored by
> WMF,
> > feedback from other staff members in WMF have been ignored by WMF,
> feedback
> > from many community members from the movement have been ignored.
> >
> > Because of the behaviour of the trust & Safety team that causes for
> > everyone in the movement an unsafe place, WMBE's treasurer has decided
> > to indefinitely
> > stop attending WMF funded events.
> >
> >
> > At the General Assembly it was requested to request an internal audit in
> > WMF to bring all the problems there to the light.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Caroline Becker
In reply to this post by Romaine Wiki-2
Hi all,

I have no opinion whatsoever about all the things going on in this mail,
except for this part :

Three additional anonymous complaints were:
* speaking to loud
* standing to close
* having touched someone's hand/arm

It must be noted that *none* of the people that complained to the Trust &
Safety team had indicated to WMBE's treasurer to experience anything as
problem.


You did not just "touched my hand/arm", you took MY stuff from my hands,
and for both medical and personnal reasons which I do not wish to share on
a public list, it was a bad experience for me, and maybe I didn't *say*
anything, but I was visibly distressed. I assumed good faith from you and
accepted your apologizes later in private, but I really do not appreciate
having this particular incident discussed here and being forced to step up
like that.

Caroline


Le lun. 17 juin 2019 à 11:00, Romaine Wiki <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

> Hello all,
>
> On Saturday 15 June 2019 Wikimedia Belgium had its annual General Assembly
> in Brussels.
>
> *New board*
> Two board members have indicated to step down:
> * Afernand74
> * SPQRobin
>
> We thank them for their work and valuable input in the past years!
> They remain available for advice to the board.
>
> Two board members were up for re-election after their previous terms ended.
> Both board members have been re-elected without any votes against them, and
> they will keep serving Wikimedia Belgium in their roles.
> * Geertivp - president
> * Romaine - treasurer
>
> One new board member has been elected without any votes against.
> * Taketa - long term Wikipedia editor and organiser of various activities
>
> Welcome Taketa!
>
> The rest of the board remains the same and the board continues the work and
> development of our chapter.
>
>
> *Evaluation behaviour WMF*
> As board we have the obligation to inform the General Assembly and other
> stakeholders about the developments with our chapter, both the good
> developments as well as the bad developments.
>
> A year ago, with our previous General Assembly, we were hopeful to resolve
> the issues we then had with on other organisation in the movement, the
> Wikimedia Foundation. Sadly we had to inform the General Assembly that
> instead of improvements, the behaviour of multiple individuals from the
> Wikimedia Foundation is below any standard. This concerns one member of the
> grants team and multiple members of the Trust and Safety team, as well as
> their supervisors.
>
> On request of the Trust & Safety team no names are mentioned. Below is a
> summary of what happened.
>
>
> *Case 1*
> In April 2017 the treasurer of Wikimedia Belgium (Romaine) spoke with our
> new grants staff member from the Wikimedia Foundation as WMBE was scheduled
> to change from successful project grants in 2017 and earlier years to
> Simple Annual Plan grants. During this meeting the plan for WMBE in 2018
> was proposed and was fine for the grants staff member. In the Summer of
> 2017 this had been worked out, and with an online call our annual plan was
> considered fine. With the final submission in October 2017, our annual
> grants proposal was reviewed by the grants staff member from WMF, had some
> minor remarks we fixed, and was considered to be excellent.
>
> In December 2017 we were informed that our grant request (suddenly) was, to
> summarise, complete wrong. It contained factual errors (like facts do not
> matter), inconsistencies, the comment that Wikimedia France and Wikimedia
> Netherlands could take everything over in Belgium, suggesting that Belgium
> has no culture (this is a serious insult to us), and much more.
> (For your reference: Wikimedia Belgium had over 90 events and activities in
> 2017, including a photo contest, education program, GLAM program with
> content donations, workshops and edit-a-thons, and more.)
>
> It raised us a lot of questions, which we asked, but our grants member of
> WMF refused to seriously answer them.
>
> Even with our lack of information and received insults, we tried to be
> constructive and before Christmas we proposed to the grants staff member
> that we would re-write during the Christmas holidays our annual plan (as
> the staff member had said many times we could improve it). With the e-mail
> following from the grants member of WMF this proposal was not rejected. So
> during the two weeks of the Christmas holidays we spent many days, together
> with the help from another experienced chapter representative, re-writing
> our annual plan. After the Christmas holidays, we were ready, and the
> response from the grants member from WMF was then that the re-written
> version could not be taken into account...
>
> After some further e-mails with this staff member we concluded as WMBE mid
> January 2018 that a collaboration with this individual from WMF is
> impossible and we banned this individual from ever contacting us again and
> we never communicated ever with this person again.
>
> The supervisor of this staff member has been informed by us about what
> happened, and refused to even investigate the situation.
>
> A colleague from the staff member took over and we received our budget for
> 2018. Later during 2018 and 2019 this WMF staff member helped us very well
> with questions, provided useful feedback and the annual plan for 2019 which
> was approved. We are now happy with this collaboration.
>
>
> *Case 2*
> During the Wikimedia Conference in April 2018 we still had many questions
> and our treasurer spoke with various other affiliates if they had advice,
> good practices, etc etc, so that we could improve our future annual plans.
> Instead of that good advice was given, they shared their similar bad
> experiences they had in the past years with our former grants person from
> WMF. Many of them indicated that they do not want the feedback/criticism to
> be public as they feel that their budget would be cut by WMF as result of
> it.
>
> With multiple chapter representatives we started to collect the feedback so
> that we could come up with some recommendations for improvements for both
> the WMF processes regarding grants as well as recommendations for
> affiliates for how to write better annual plans.
>
> Our former grants person from WMF heard about the initiative and started to
> tell bad (untrue) stories about WMBE's treasurer to bring him in discredit.
> Multiple people have testified that our former grants person was doing
> this, gossip like that WMBE's treasurer was planning to attack that grants
> person. The Trust & Safety team heard about it and drew immediately the
> conclusion that the gossip was true, without checking the facts, without
> even talking to any of the involved individuals, and asked WMBE's treasurer
> not to approach or contact the former grants person. (To be crystal clear:
> there was never ever a plan to contact the grants person from WMF at all.)
>
> Even after the Trust & Safety team spoke with WMBE's treasure, the gossip
> continued, causing a very unsafe conference space. A member of the Trust &
> Safety team was later informed about the ongoing gossip and refused to take
> any action to stop it, indicating not to take it seriously.
>
>
> *Case 3*
> During Wikimania 2018, WMBE's treasurer was asked to help the organisers of
> Wikimania in Cape Town to help and assist wherever needed. One of the tasks
> was to bring stuff from A to B on request. Everything seemed to go fine.
>
> Halfway the conference, WMBE's treasurer was casually approached by a
> member of the Trust and Safety team with a question to have a chat. A
> second team member came and they took an elevator together. In the elevator
> the team members made jokes and were laughing. As soon as they were in the
> room, it was made clear that the Trust & Safety team had received
> complaints about WMBE's treasurer.
>
> The main complaint was: being in the same (large) room as the grants member
> of WMF. The complainant was the grants member of WMF, and this person
> claimed that WMBE's treasurer had said something and that the grants member
> from WMF had been highly distressed resulting in not being able to do the
> presentation (later in that session) well.
>
> The situation was that WMBE's treasurer was asked to bring something to a
> room where a session just started (such requests happen many times during
> the conference, the grants person who complained was not presenting at that
> time), the materials were handed to someone in the back of the room and he
> left the room silently as quickly as possible. Multiple people present in
> that session have testified that he did not speak while bringing materials
> to the room, and they also testified that the presentation by the grants
> person from WMF went reasonable well.
> Also, during lunch WMBE's treasurer was sitting somewhere very visible to
> everyone, where the grants person from WMF came standing next to the
> treasurer, approached from the front. If the grants person from WMF really
> gets highly distressed by his presence, this person would not have done
> that.
>
> The Trust & Safety team blindly believed the statements made by their WMF
> colleague, the team did not ask witnesses in the room about what happened,
> all the information here above was provided to the Trust & Safety team, but
> the Trust & Safety team fully ignored this information and the witnesses
> who say otherwise.
>
> Three additional anonymous complaints were:
> * speaking to loud
> * standing to close
> * having touched someone's hand/arm
>
> It must be noted that *none* of the people that complained to the Trust &
> Safety team had indicated to WMBE's treasurer to experience anything as
> problem.
> Also, WMBE's treasurer has as disability that he hears less, does not hear
> well what the height of his volume is (but still trying to not to speak too
> loud), and with bad acoustics has to stand closer to people to hear them
> well. The Trust & Safety team was informed about this during the meeting.
> Also in the local culture where he comes from touching is a normal thing.
> Also many people that have been frequently with WMBE's treasurer at the
> conference have indicated that he did not speak too loud.
>
> During the meeting the Trust & Safety team told that they already had
> informed everyone in the organising team that they demanded WMBE's
> treasurer must stop helping in organising Wikimania 2018, meaning that they
> already had drawn the conclusion even before speaking with him.
>
> They also indicated that they "had to do something" so they could show
> the complainants
> that they do something when complaints are received, even while their
> decision did not solve/improve the complaints at all. The Trust & Safety
> team refused to think about real solutions, they refused to organise a
> dialogue to solve the complaints, they refused to mediate, they promised to
> organise a meeting with a supervisor, but that they never did. It also
> became clear they have zero feeling with people with autism. The Trust &
> Safety said they could not share any more information about what happened
> because of the privacy of the complainants.
>
> During the conference WMBE's treasurer made it public, to prevent having to
> tell emotionally what happened, as well as for transparency reasons. This
> did not take away that he felt ever since that chat highly unsafe as result
> by the behaviour of the Trust & Safety team, and still continues up to
> today, as well as he also had been five weeks ill after the conference
> because of this.
>
> Many people at the conference indicated to disagree with the decision of
> the Trust & Safety team, including WMF staff members and Wikimania's
> organising team. During the conference many of them approached the Trust &
> Safety team about it, various of them also proposing other solutions that.
> In these talks the Trust & Safety team shared a lot more details which they
> refused to share with WMBE's treasurer. Also the Trust & Safety team told
> that he had been warned before (which is not true), as well as exaggerating
> and framing what supposedly had happened.
>
>
> *Afterwards*
> After Wikimania the Trust & Safety team received an e-mail from WMBE's
> treasurer with a more detailed overview of what happened, including the
> many witnesses who claim differently. But all of this was fully ignored by
> the Trust & Safety team. After the conference nothing had been heard from
> the Trust & Safety team, until mid December 2018.
>
> In the first two weeks of December 2018 WMBE's treasurer received multiple
> e-mails from WMF staff members, including strangely in what was written a
> farewell and thank you for all the work. Apparently the Trust & Safety team
> had shared their new decision with other departments, while actual
> stakeholders were not informed.
>
> About a week later both the treasurer of WMBE as the president of WMBE (but
> none of the other organisations he is active for) received an e-mail in
> what the Trust & Safety team indicates to have received further complaints:
> - First they refer to the situation in December 2017-January 2018
> concerning the interaction with the former grants person from WMF.
> Apparently the Trust & Safety team fully has ignored all the insults at the
> address of our chapter and country. Also the e-mail reads largely like the
> grants person itself had written the e-mail.
> - Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to ever contact WMBE's
> former grants person at WMF (one way only!) (Even while WMBE had banned
> every contact with this person already in January 2018.)
> - And they forbid to have contact with WMF grants grants team for about two
> years. (Even while the contact with all the other members of the grants
> team was going fine, even receiving various compliments. )
>
> Still it was decided by Wikimedia Belgium to keep WMBE's treasurer as
> treasurer of WMBE.
>
> - Someone at the conference saw WMBE's treasurer with a mascot and asked
> the name of the mascot. Answer: "Wendy the Weasel", clearly indicating a
> female name. The question that followed was what the gender was of the
> mascot. WMBE's treasurer was thinking that this was just said, and replied
> that as there are no outer organs the mascot must be female. (Having asked
> around, in the part of the world where WMBE's treasurer lives this is not
> considered a problem, but maybe this is differently elsewhere and is there
> a taboo.)
> - Someone had indicated that WMBE's treasurer has been standing in the way
> of that person and blocking the complainants path at Wikimania. It was a
> space of about 1.5 to 2 metres, where also multiple other people where
> standing, and people passing by were asked question, but everyone who
> wanted to pass by could do so.
> - Someone has told that WMBE's treasurer would have said that he would
> visit conferences "to pick up girls". Everybody who knows WMBE's treasurer
> knows this is nonsense. Some contest: WMBE's treasurer has someone he loves
> in his home country with zero interest of that kind in anyone else, and
> falls in the category of LGBT+ and does not fall on the women at the
> conferences. It must be noticed extremely suggestive interpretations of
> other people (that do not have the regular impressions, like due being
> LGBT+), have far reaching effects as conclusions. Such is an insult.
> - Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to be present at events
> funded directly/indirectly by WMF for two years.
>
>
> Again it must be noticed that the Trust & Safety team for the third time on
> a row refuses to talk with the individual who it concerns first, before
> drawing any conclusions. The Trust & Safety team comes in their e-mail with
> a lot of assumptions based on loose sand. They also claim that WMBE's
> treasurer fails to assume good faith.
> In an e-mail to the presidents of two chapters they said that "they know
> how he thinks", followed by a lot of nonsense and false claims. The Trust &
> Safety team does not assume good faith themselves if they write that.
>
>
> The Trust & Safety team provided in their communication zero examples of
> where the Friendly Space Policy has been breached.
>
>
>
> The situation of WMBE's treasurer and the Trust & Safety team has been
> reviewed by an independent professional with expertise in complaints
> handling. The conclusion of this expert: almost everything that the Trust &
> Safety team could have done wrong in handling complaints, they did do
> wrong. Many basic principles in complaint handling and conflict resolution
> have been ignored by the Trust & Safety team. In addition to this, they
> communicate very intimidating as well as with treats.
>
> The way how they work/communicate gives the impression like a staff member
> of WMF is more worth than a volunteer from the community.
>
>
> Two chapters have reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation, indicating that
> the way how the Trust & Safety team was operating is not appropriate, but
> WMF refuses to take these concerns seriously and has ignored this fully.
> Again the Trust & Safety team refuses to work together on actual solutions.
>
>
> To summarise, feedback/information from WMBE's treasurer has been ignored
> by WMF, feedback from the president of WMBE has been ignored by WMF,
> feedback from the president and director of WMNL have been ignored by WMF,
> feedback from other staff members in WMF have been ignored by WMF, feedback
> from many community members from the movement have been ignored.
>
> Because of the behaviour of the trust & Safety team that causes for
> everyone in the movement an unsafe place, WMBE's treasurer has decided
> to indefinitely
> stop attending WMF funded events.
>
>
> At the General Assembly it was requested to request an internal audit in
> WMF to bring all the problems there to the light.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
whoa!

pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward is not ok at all. I do not honestly understand why the story from nearly a year ago has emerged, with personal details.

It is not unusual for people who caused distress to not have done it intentionally, and to genuinely believe they did nothing wrong. It is nevertheless the role of the safety team to react to any reports they receive.

Romaine, you're describing "a rumor that WMBE's treasurer was planning to attack that grants person" and are surprised that the safety team acted upon this rumor. I hope it is clear that they did exactly what they should have done. If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as they may seem, the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged would-be attacker and request politely that they stay away, to deescalate even just a potentially tense situation.

I personally believe this fork of the discussion threat deserves a quick EOT and salting.

Dariusz "pundit" (replying in my absolutely personal, and hastily expressed opinion)





_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Michel Vuijlsteke-2
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 16:12, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as they may seem,
>the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged would-be attacker
and
>request politely that they stay away, to deescalate even just a
potentially tense situation.

In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
rumour about them?

>I personally believe this fork of the discussion threat deserves a quick
EOT and salting.

I personally don't.

Michel
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
Dariusz,

I've read and reread the WMBE message, and have not found anything near
"pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward".
I also do not understand why you're addressing WMBE as "Romaine" (begging
the question?).

Can you please clarify?

Paulo

Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019
à(s) 15:12:

> whoa!
>
> pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward is not ok
> at all. I do not honestly understand why the story from nearly a year ago
> has emerged, with personal details.
>
> It is not unusual for people who caused distress to not have done it
> intentionally, and to genuinely believe they did nothing wrong. It is
> nevertheless the role of the safety team to react to any reports they
> receive.
>
> Romaine, you're describing "a rumor that WMBE's treasurer was planning to
> attack that grants person" and are surprised that the safety team acted
> upon this rumor. I hope it is clear that they did exactly what they should
> have done. If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as
> they may seem, the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged
> would-be attacker and request politely that they stay away, to deescalate
> even just a potentially tense situation.
>
> I personally believe this fork of the discussion threat deserves a quick
> EOT and salting.
>
> Dariusz "pundit" (replying in my absolutely personal, and hastily
> expressed opinion)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Michel Vuijlsteke-2
" In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
rumour about them" - that's Wikimedia version of the Salem witch trials.
Unbelievable that this sort of thing is coming from one of the WMF
trustees, even as a personal opinion.

Paulo

Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019
à(s) 15:26:

> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 16:12, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as they may
> seem,
> >the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged would-be attacker
> and
> >request politely that they stay away, to deescalate even just a
> potentially tense situation.
>
> In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
> rumour about them?
>
> >I personally believe this fork of the discussion threat deserves a quick
> EOT and salting.
>
> I personally don't.
>
> Michel
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Amir Sarabadani-2
Are you comparing banning someone to participate at conference(s) with
hanging innocent people?

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:34 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> " In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
> rumour about them" - that's Wikimedia version of the Salem witch trials.
> Unbelievable that this sort of thing is coming from one of the WMF
> trustees, even as a personal opinion.
>
> Paulo
>
> Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019
> à(s) 15:26:
>
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 16:12, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as they may
> > seem,
> > >the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged would-be
> attacker
> > and
> > >request politely that they stay away, to deescalate even just a
> > potentially tense situation.
> >
> > In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
> > rumour about them?
> >
> > >I personally believe this fork of the discussion threat deserves a quick
> > EOT and salting.
> >
> > I personally don't.
> >
> > Michel
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Amir (he/him)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Isaac Olatunde
I understand it as an official message from WMBE emanating from their last
General Assembly, posted by one of the board members on behalf of the
chapter.
But probably it should have been posted by another person, indeed, to avoid
confusion.

Paulo

Isaac Olatunde <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda,
17/06/2019 à(s) 15:32:

> Considering that it was sent by that person, one may reasonably conclude
> that it was written by them. That being said, I do not want to believe that
> it was not reviewed and approved by the governing board (assuming it was
> written by that person). BUT if it was written by another person, reviewed
> and approved by the board why is the involved person sending this email on
> behalf of WMBE? Just curious.
>
> Regards,
>
> Isaac
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:27 PM Thomas Townsend <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Am I right in thinking that this email, containing a long account of
> > the alleged poor treatment of the Treasurer of WMBE, referred to
> > throughout in the third person, was in fact written by that person?
> >
> > The Turnip
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 10:00, Romaine Wiki <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > On Saturday 15 June 2019 Wikimedia Belgium had its annual General
> > Assembly
> > > in Brussels.
> > >
> > > *New board*
> > > Two board members have indicated to step down:
> > > * Afernand74
> > > * SPQRobin
> > >
> > > We thank them for their work and valuable input in the past years!
> > > They remain available for advice to the board.
> > >
> > > Two board members were up for re-election after their previous terms
> > ended.
> > > Both board members have been re-elected without any votes against them,
> > and
> > > they will keep serving Wikimedia Belgium in their roles.
> > > * Geertivp - president
> > > * Romaine - treasurer
> > >
> > > One new board member has been elected without any votes against.
> > > * Taketa - long term Wikipedia editor and organiser of various
> activities
> > >
> > > Welcome Taketa!
> > >
> > > The rest of the board remains the same and the board continues the work
> > and
> > > development of our chapter.
> > >
> > >
> > > *Evaluation behaviour WMF*
> > > As board we have the obligation to inform the General Assembly and
> other
> > > stakeholders about the developments with our chapter, both the good
> > > developments as well as the bad developments.
> > >
> > > A year ago, with our previous General Assembly, we were hopeful to
> > resolve
> > > the issues we then had with on other organisation in the movement, the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation. Sadly we had to inform the General Assembly that
> > > instead of improvements, the behaviour of multiple individuals from the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation is below any standard. This concerns one member of
> > the
> > > grants team and multiple members of the Trust and Safety team, as well
> as
> > > their supervisors.
> > >
> > > On request of the Trust & Safety team no names are mentioned. Below is
> a
> > > summary of what happened.
> > >
> > >
> > > *Case 1*
> > > In April 2017 the treasurer of Wikimedia Belgium (Romaine) spoke with
> our
> > > new grants staff member from the Wikimedia Foundation as WMBE was
> > scheduled
> > > to change from successful project grants in 2017 and earlier years to
> > > Simple Annual Plan grants. During this meeting the plan for WMBE in
> 2018
> > > was proposed and was fine for the grants staff member. In the Summer of
> > > 2017 this had been worked out, and with an online call our annual plan
> > was
> > > considered fine. With the final submission in October 2017, our annual
> > > grants proposal was reviewed by the grants staff member from WMF, had
> > some
> > > minor remarks we fixed, and was considered to be excellent.
> > >
> > > In December 2017 we were informed that our grant request (suddenly)
> was,
> > to
> > > summarise, complete wrong. It contained factual errors (like facts do
> not
> > > matter), inconsistencies, the comment that Wikimedia France and
> Wikimedia
> > > Netherlands could take everything over in Belgium, suggesting that
> > Belgium
> > > has no culture (this is a serious insult to us), and much more.
> > > (For your reference: Wikimedia Belgium had over 90 events and
> activities
> > in
> > > 2017, including a photo contest, education program, GLAM program with
> > > content donations, workshops and edit-a-thons, and more.)
> > >
> > > It raised us a lot of questions, which we asked, but our grants member
> of
> > > WMF refused to seriously answer them.
> > >
> > > Even with our lack of information and received insults, we tried to be
> > > constructive and before Christmas we proposed to the grants staff
> member
> > > that we would re-write during the Christmas holidays our annual plan
> (as
> > > the staff member had said many times we could improve it). With the
> > e-mail
> > > following from the grants member of WMF this proposal was not rejected.
> > So
> > > during the two weeks of the Christmas holidays we spent many days,
> > together
> > > with the help from another experienced chapter representative,
> re-writing
> > > our annual plan. After the Christmas holidays, we were ready, and the
> > > response from the grants member from WMF was then that the re-written
> > > version could not be taken into account...
> > >
> > > After some further e-mails with this staff member we concluded as WMBE
> > mid
> > > January 2018 that a collaboration with this individual from WMF is
> > > impossible and we banned this individual from ever contacting us again
> > and
> > > we never communicated ever with this person again.
> > >
> > > The supervisor of this staff member has been informed by us about what
> > > happened, and refused to even investigate the situation.
> > >
> > > A colleague from the staff member took over and we received our budget
> > for
> > > 2018. Later during 2018 and 2019 this WMF staff member helped us very
> > well
> > > with questions, provided useful feedback and the annual plan for 2019
> > which
> > > was approved. We are now happy with this collaboration.
> > >
> > >
> > > *Case 2*
> > > During the Wikimedia Conference in April 2018 we still had many
> questions
> > > and our treasurer spoke with various other affiliates if they had
> advice,
> > > good practices, etc etc, so that we could improve our future annual
> > plans.
> > > Instead of that good advice was given, they shared their similar bad
> > > experiences they had in the past years with our former grants person
> from
> > > WMF. Many of them indicated that they do not want the
> feedback/criticism
> > to
> > > be public as they feel that their budget would be cut by WMF as result
> of
> > > it.
> > >
> > > With multiple chapter representatives we started to collect the
> feedback
> > so
> > > that we could come up with some recommendations for improvements for
> both
> > > the WMF processes regarding grants as well as recommendations for
> > > affiliates for how to write better annual plans.
> > >
> > > Our former grants person from WMF heard about the initiative and
> started
> > to
> > > tell bad (untrue) stories about WMBE's treasurer to bring him in
> > discredit.
> > > Multiple people have testified that our former grants person was doing
> > > this, gossip like that WMBE's treasurer was planning to attack that
> > grants
> > > person. The Trust & Safety team heard about it and drew immediately the
> > > conclusion that the gossip was true, without checking the facts,
> without
> > > even talking to any of the involved individuals, and asked WMBE's
> > treasurer
> > > not to approach or contact the former grants person. (To be crystal
> > clear:
> > > there was never ever a plan to contact the grants person from WMF at
> > all.)
> > >
> > > Even after the Trust & Safety team spoke with WMBE's treasure, the
> gossip
> > > continued, causing a very unsafe conference space. A member of the
> Trust
> > &
> > > Safety team was later informed about the ongoing gossip and refused to
> > take
> > > any action to stop it, indicating not to take it seriously.
> > >
> > >
> > > *Case 3*
> > > During Wikimania 2018, WMBE's treasurer was asked to help the
> organisers
> > of
> > > Wikimania in Cape Town to help and assist wherever needed. One of the
> > tasks
> > > was to bring stuff from A to B on request. Everything seemed to go
> fine.
> > >
> > > Halfway the conference, WMBE's treasurer was casually approached by a
> > > member of the Trust and Safety team with a question to have a chat. A
> > > second team member came and they took an elevator together. In the
> > elevator
> > > the team members made jokes and were laughing. As soon as they were in
> > the
> > > room, it was made clear that the Trust & Safety team had received
> > > complaints about WMBE's treasurer.
> > >
> > > The main complaint was: being in the same (large) room as the grants
> > member
> > > of WMF. The complainant was the grants member of WMF, and this person
> > > claimed that WMBE's treasurer had said something and that the grants
> > member
> > > from WMF had been highly distressed resulting in not being able to do
> the
> > > presentation (later in that session) well.
> > >
> > > The situation was that WMBE's treasurer was asked to bring something
> to a
> > > room where a session just started (such requests happen many times
> during
> > > the conference, the grants person who complained was not presenting at
> > that
> > > time), the materials were handed to someone in the back of the room and
> > he
> > > left the room silently as quickly as possible. Multiple people present
> in
> > > that session have testified that he did not speak while bringing
> > materials
> > > to the room, and they also testified that the presentation by the
> grants
> > > person from WMF went reasonable well.
> > > Also, during lunch WMBE's treasurer was sitting somewhere very visible
> to
> > > everyone, where the grants person from WMF came standing next to the
> > > treasurer, approached from the front. If the grants person from WMF
> > really
> > > gets highly distressed by his presence, this person would not have done
> > > that.
> > >
> > > The Trust & Safety team blindly believed the statements made by their
> WMF
> > > colleague, the team did not ask witnesses in the room about what
> > happened,
> > > all the information here above was provided to the Trust & Safety team,
> > but
> > > the Trust & Safety team fully ignored this information and the
> witnesses
> > > who say otherwise.
> > >
> > > Three additional anonymous complaints were:
> > > * speaking to loud
> > > * standing to close
> > > * having touched someone's hand/arm
> > >
> > > It must be noted that *none* of the people that complained to the
> Trust &
> > > Safety team had indicated to WMBE's treasurer to experience anything as
> > > problem.
> > > Also, WMBE's treasurer has as disability that he hears less, does not
> > hear
> > > well what the height of his volume is (but still trying to not to speak
> > too
> > > loud), and with bad acoustics has to stand closer to people to hear
> them
> > > well. The Trust & Safety team was informed about this during the
> meeting.
> > > Also in the local culture where he comes from touching is a normal
> thing.
> > > Also many people that have been frequently with WMBE's treasurer at the
> > > conference have indicated that he did not speak too loud.
> > >
> > > During the meeting the Trust & Safety team told that they already had
> > > informed everyone in the organising team that they demanded WMBE's
> > > treasurer must stop helping in organising Wikimania 2018, meaning that
> > they
> > > already had drawn the conclusion even before speaking with him.
> > >
> > > They also indicated that they "had to do something" so they could show
> > > the complainants
> > > that they do something when complaints are received, even while their
> > > decision did not solve/improve the complaints at all. The Trust &
> Safety
> > > team refused to think about real solutions, they refused to organise a
> > > dialogue to solve the complaints, they refused to mediate, they
> promised
> > to
> > > organise a meeting with a supervisor, but that they never did. It also
> > > became clear they have zero feeling with people with autism. The Trust
> &
> > > Safety said they could not share any more information about what
> happened
> > > because of the privacy of the complainants.
> > >
> > > During the conference WMBE's treasurer made it public, to prevent
> having
> > to
> > > tell emotionally what happened, as well as for transparency reasons.
> This
> > > did not take away that he felt ever since that chat highly unsafe as
> > result
> > > by the behaviour of the Trust & Safety team, and still continues up to
> > > today, as well as he also had been five weeks ill after the conference
> > > because of this.
> > >
> > > Many people at the conference indicated to disagree with the decision
> of
> > > the Trust & Safety team, including WMF staff members and Wikimania's
> > > organising team. During the conference many of them approached the
> Trust
> > &
> > > Safety team about it, various of them also proposing other solutions
> > that.
> > > In these talks the Trust & Safety team shared a lot more details which
> > they
> > > refused to share with WMBE's treasurer. Also the Trust & Safety team
> told
> > > that he had been warned before (which is not true), as well as
> > exaggerating
> > > and framing what supposedly had happened.
> > >
> > >
> > > *Afterwards*
> > > After Wikimania the Trust & Safety team received an e-mail from WMBE's
> > > treasurer with a more detailed overview of what happened, including the
> > > many witnesses who claim differently. But all of this was fully ignored
> > by
> > > the Trust & Safety team. After the conference nothing had been heard
> from
> > > the Trust & Safety team, until mid December 2018.
> > >
> > > In the first two weeks of December 2018 WMBE's treasurer received
> > multiple
> > > e-mails from WMF staff members, including strangely in what was
> written a
> > > farewell and thank you for all the work. Apparently the Trust & Safety
> > team
> > > had shared their new decision with other departments, while actual
> > > stakeholders were not informed.
> > >
> > > About a week later both the treasurer of WMBE as the president of WMBE
> > (but
> > > none of the other organisations he is active for) received an e-mail in
> > > what the Trust & Safety team indicates to have received further
> > complaints:
> > > - First they refer to the situation in December 2017-January 2018
> > > concerning the interaction with the former grants person from WMF.
> > > Apparently the Trust & Safety team fully has ignored all the insults at
> > the
> > > address of our chapter and country. Also the e-mail reads largely like
> > the
> > > grants person itself had written the e-mail.
> > > - Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to ever contact WMBE's
> > > former grants person at WMF (one way only!) (Even while WMBE had banned
> > > every contact with this person already in January 2018.)
> > > - And they forbid to have contact with WMF grants grants team for about
> > two
> > > years. (Even while the contact with all the other members of the grants
> > > team was going fine, even receiving various compliments. )
> > >
> > > Still it was decided by Wikimedia Belgium to keep WMBE's treasurer as
> > > treasurer of WMBE.
> > >
> > > - Someone at the conference saw WMBE's treasurer with a mascot and
> asked
> > > the name of the mascot. Answer: "Wendy the Weasel", clearly indicating
> a
> > > female name. The question that followed was what the gender was of the
> > > mascot. WMBE's treasurer was thinking that this was just said, and
> > replied
> > > that as there are no outer organs the mascot must be female. (Having
> > asked
> > > around, in the part of the world where WMBE's treasurer lives this is
> not
> > > considered a problem, but maybe this is differently elsewhere and is
> > there
> > > a taboo.)
> > > - Someone had indicated that WMBE's treasurer has been standing in the
> > way
> > > of that person and blocking the complainants path at Wikimania. It was
> a
> > > space of about 1.5 to 2 metres, where also multiple other people where
> > > standing, and people passing by were asked question, but everyone who
> > > wanted to pass by could do so.
> > > - Someone has told that WMBE's treasurer would have said that he would
> > > visit conferences "to pick up girls". Everybody who knows WMBE's
> > treasurer
> > > knows this is nonsense. Some contest: WMBE's treasurer has someone he
> > loves
> > > in his home country with zero interest of that kind in anyone else, and
> > > falls in the category of LGBT+ and does not fall on the women at the
> > > conferences. It must be noticed extremely suggestive interpretations of
> > > other people (that do not have the regular impressions, like due being
> > > LGBT+), have far reaching effects as conclusions. Such is an insult.
> > > - Because of this they forbid WMBE's treasurer to be present at events
> > > funded directly/indirectly by WMF for two years.
> > >
> > >
> > > Again it must be noticed that the Trust & Safety team for the third
> time
> > on
> > > a row refuses to talk with the individual who it concerns first, before
> > > drawing any conclusions. The Trust & Safety team comes in their e-mail
> > with
> > > a lot of assumptions based on loose sand. They also claim that WMBE's
> > > treasurer fails to assume good faith.
> > > In an e-mail to the presidents of two chapters they said that "they
> know
> > > how he thinks", followed by a lot of nonsense and false claims. The
> > Trust &
> > > Safety team does not assume good faith themselves if they write that.
> > >
> > >
> > > The Trust & Safety team provided in their communication zero examples
> of
> > > where the Friendly Space Policy has been breached.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The situation of WMBE's treasurer and the Trust & Safety team has been
> > > reviewed by an independent professional with expertise in complaints
> > > handling. The conclusion of this expert: almost everything that the
> > Trust &
> > > Safety team could have done wrong in handling complaints, they did do
> > > wrong. Many basic principles in complaint handling and conflict
> > resolution
> > > have been ignored by the Trust & Safety team. In addition to this, they
> > > communicate very intimidating as well as with treats.
> > >
> > > The way how they work/communicate gives the impression like a staff
> > member
> > > of WMF is more worth than a volunteer from the community.
> > >
> > >
> > > Two chapters have reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation, indicating
> > that
> > > the way how the Trust & Safety team was operating is not appropriate,
> but
> > > WMF refuses to take these concerns seriously and has ignored this
> fully.
> > > Again the Trust & Safety team refuses to work together on actual
> > solutions.
> > >
> > >
> > > To summarise, feedback/information from WMBE's treasurer has been
> ignored
> > > by WMF, feedback from the president of WMBE has been ignored by WMF,
> > > feedback from the president and director of WMNL have been ignored by
> > WMF,
> > > feedback from other staff members in WMF have been ignored by WMF,
> > feedback
> > > from many community members from the movement have been ignored.
> > >
> > > Because of the behaviour of the trust & Safety team that causes for
> > > everyone in the movement an unsafe place, WMBE's treasurer has decided
> > > to indefinitely
> > > stop attending WMF funded events.
> > >
> > >
> > > At the General Assembly it was requested to request an internal audit
> in
> > > WMF to bring all the problems there to the light.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Amir Sarabadani-2
I'm comparing it to a case where spreading of rumors led to the
condemnation of presumably innocent people without due process, in a kind
of "precautionary principle".
The punishment in question is immaterial to this case. Or will you argue
that an episode is only worth of attention if people are killed or
physically hurt?

Paulo

Amir Sarabadani <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019
à(s) 15:36:

> Are you comparing banning someone to participate at conference(s) with
> hanging innocent people?
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:34 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > " In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
> > rumour about them" - that's Wikimedia version of the Salem witch trials.
> > Unbelievable that this sort of thing is coming from one of the WMF
> > trustees, even as a personal opinion.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda,
> 17/06/2019
> > à(s) 15:26:
> >
> > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 16:12, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as they may
> > > seem,
> > > >the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged would-be
> > attacker
> > > and
> > > >request politely that they stay away, to deescalate even just a
> > > potentially tense situation.
> > >
> > > In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
> > > rumour about them?
> > >
> > > >I personally believe this fork of the discussion threat deserves a
> quick
> > > EOT and salting.
> > >
> > > I personally don't.
> > >
> > > Michel
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Amir (he/him)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Michel Vuijlsteke-2


On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:26 PM Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
rumour about them?

My understanding is that noone was banned from an event.

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
I've read and reread the WMBE message, and have not found anything near "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward".

I'm referring to message from Caroline.


I also do not understand why you're addressing WMBE as "Romaine" (begging the question?).

Can you please clarify?

The message was sent from [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> account and I assumed that addressing the sender as "Romaine" is appropriate.

best,

dj
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Ziko van Dijk-3
Hello,
It seems to me the best that a (different) member of the WMBE board
contacts a suitable person at WMF. A public list is not the best place
for sorting these things out.
Kind regards
Ziko

Am Mo., 17. Juni 2019 um 16:48 Uhr schrieb Dariusz Jemielniak
<[hidden email]>:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:26 PM Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
> rumour about them?
>
> My understanding is that noone was banned from an event.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> I've read and reread the WMBE message, and have not found anything near "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward".
>
> I'm referring to message from Caroline.
>
>
> I also do not understand why you're addressing WMBE as "Romaine" (begging the question?).
>
> Can you please clarify?
>
> The message was sent from [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> account and I assumed that addressing the sender as "Romaine" is appropriate.
>
> best,
>
> dj
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
" I'm referring to message from Caroline" - How have you jumped from
Caroline wanting to further clarify something, to the conclusion that the
OP was  "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward"?
Yes, she claims to have been "forced to step up", but were you able to find
any evidence for that in the OP? Any accusation is automatically true?

Paulo

Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019
à(s) 15:48:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:26 PM Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
> rumour about them?
>
> My understanding is that noone was banned from an event.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> I've read and reread the WMBE message, and have not found anything near
> "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward".
>
> I'm referring to message from Caroline.
>
>
> I also do not understand why you're addressing WMBE as "Romaine" (begging
> the question?).
>
> Can you please clarify?
>
> The message was sent from [hidden email]<mailto:
> [hidden email]> account and I assumed that addressing the sender
> as "Romaine" is appropriate.
>
> best,
>
> dj
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Gabriel Thullen
In reply to this post by Ziko van Dijk-3
Thank you WMBE for your long report.
I was at Wikimania 2018 and I was deeply troubled by the actions taken by
the Trust & Safety team. I now have a much clearer understanding of what
went on, and I feel that there really needs to be some introspection done
by the Trust & Safety team.
I am also quite horrified by your quote about a comment "that Wikimedia
France and Wikimedia
Netherlands could take everything over in Belgium".
This is really so insesitive and displays such ignorance of the different
European cultures that I just cannot understand why the record has not been
set right. Belgium cannot be split up between France and the Netherlands,
just like Switzerland cannot be split up between France, Germany and Italy
(leaving just the little Romansh speaking  area to fend for itself).
Seriously, something is wrong at the Foundation, and this needs to be fixed.

Gabe
proud member of WMCH, a multi-lingual and multi-cultural chapter


On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:53 PM Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
> It seems to me the best that a (different) member of the WMBE board
> contacts a suitable person at WMF. A public list is not the best place
> for sorting these things out.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> Am Mo., 17. Juni 2019 um 16:48 Uhr schrieb Dariusz Jemielniak
> <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:26 PM Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> > In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
> > rumour about them?
> >
> > My understanding is that noone was banned from an event.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> > I've read and reread the WMBE message, and have not found anything near
> "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward".
> >
> > I'm referring to message from Caroline.
> >
> >
> > I also do not understand why you're addressing WMBE as "Romaine"
> (begging the question?).
> >
> > Can you please clarify?
> >
> > The message was sent from [hidden email]<mailto:
> [hidden email]> account and I assumed that addressing the sender
> as "Romaine" is appropriate.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > dj
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Isaac Olatunde
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
The "sender is Romaine" is not the same as  "Romaine is WMBE". This sort of
confusion should have been prevented by allowing another person to send
this email on behalf of WMBE.

Regards,

Isaac



On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 3:48 PM Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email] wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:26 PM Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> In other words, the best way to ban anyone from any event is to start a
> rumour about them?
>
> My understanding is that noone was banned from an event.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> I've read and reread the WMBE message, and have not found anything near
> "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward".
>
> I'm referring to message from Caroline.
>
>
> I also do not understand why you're addressing WMBE as "Romaine" (begging
> the question?).
>
> Can you please clarify?
>
> The message was sent from [hidden email]<mailto:
> [hidden email]> account and I assumed that addressing the sender
> as "Romaine" is appropriate.
>
> best,
>
> dj
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Paulo Santos Perneta
Hi Paulo,


On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
" I'm referring to message from Caroline" - How have you jumped from Caroline wanting to further clarify something, to the conclusion that the OP was  "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward"?

I'm specifically referring to this sentence " I really do not appreciate having this particular incident discussed here and being forced to step up
like that."

Yes, she claims to have been "forced to step up", but were you able to find any evidence for that in the OP? Any accusation is automatically true?

I believe that the person who voluntarily identified herself as the one requesting T&S support is not randomly lying about that. I don't think it was an accusation, it was an expression of the personal urge to set the record straight.

Again, please note that I'm not referring to what did or did not happen a year ago. I've been trying to express my frustration with discussing personal details and stories on a public list. I've clearly failed.

best,

dj


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Paulo Santos Perneta
Hi Dariusz,

I understand Caroline wanted to add that she was finding difficult that
Romain was not aware of her stress or unease on a specific situation
vaguely described there (without any mention to her at all). And that later
they have talked about it, and she accepted his apologies for that in
private. I can't find the least evidence of her being forced to step up and
expose herself just to clarify that there. As far as I know, it never was
in question that some people felt uneasy with some behavior there. They
talked about it, apologies were presented, end of story. Or would have been
end of story, if not for the T&S interference.

Paulo



Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019
à(s) 16:04:

> Hi Paulo,
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
> " I'm referring to message from Caroline" - How have you jumped from
> Caroline wanting to further clarify something, to the conclusion that the
> OP was  "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward"?
>
> I'm specifically referring to this sentence " I really do not appreciate
> having this particular incident discussed here and being forced to step up
> like that."
>
> Yes, she claims to have been "forced to step up", but were you able to
> find any evidence for that in the OP? Any accusation is automatically true?
>
> I believe that the person who voluntarily identified herself as the one
> requesting T&S support is not randomly lying about that. I don't think it
> was an accusation, it was an expression of the personal urge to set the
> record straight.
>
> Again, please note that I'm not referring to what did or did not happen a
> year ago. I've been trying to express my frustration with discussing
> personal details and stories on a public list. I've clearly failed.
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Caroline Becker
I was forced to step up *today* on this mailing list because the
description of the WIkimania 2018 incident in the first mail was false: the
claim that "none of us expressed there was a problem" is simply not what
happened.

And by the way this is exactly why the details of stuff like that are NOT
shared publicly. For me the incident was closed and well handled by the T&S
team, I really didn't need a debate where people are expressing their
uninformed, bar room like opinions about the seriousness of the incident or
what should or should not have been done.

Caroline


Le lun. 17 juin 2019 à 17:14, Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
a écrit :

> Hi Dariusz,
>
> I understand Caroline wanted to add that she was finding difficult that
> Romain was not aware of her stress or unease on a specific situation
> vaguely described there (without any mention to her at all). And that later
> they have talked about it, and she accepted his apologies for that in
> private. I can't find the least evidence of her being forced to step up and
> expose herself just to clarify that there. As far as I know, it never was
> in question that some people felt uneasy with some behavior there. They
> talked about it, apologies were presented, end of story. Or would have been
> end of story, if not for the T&S interference.
>
> Paulo
>
>
>
> Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda, 17/06/2019
> à(s) 16:04:
>
> > Hi Paulo,
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
> > " I'm referring to message from Caroline" - How have you jumped from
> > Caroline wanting to further clarify something, to the conclusion that the
> > OP was  "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step forward"?
> >
> > I'm specifically referring to this sentence " I really do not appreciate
> > having this particular incident discussed here and being forced to step
> up
> > like that."
> >
> > Yes, she claims to have been "forced to step up", but were you able to
> > find any evidence for that in the OP? Any accusation is automatically
> true?
> >
> > I believe that the person who voluntarily identified herself as the one
> > requesting T&S support is not randomly lying about that. I don't think it
> > was an accusation, it was an expression of the personal urge to set the
> > record straight.
> >
> > Again, please note that I'm not referring to what did or did not happen a
> > year ago. I've been trying to express my frustration with discussing
> > personal details and stories on a public list. I've clearly failed.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > dj
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF

Ciell Wikipedia
Hello Caroline,

I'm very sorry for what happened back in Capetown and that today you are
reminded of this again through a public mailing list, where the story is
starting to lead it's own life. I can only imagine that you felt the need
to correct this misinterpretation of what happened to you.
I know Romaine for several years and recognise the behaviour you are
describing and even though I know he doesn't mean any harm with it (it's
his enthusiasm that gets the better of him), I do realise it may cause
distress with the other person. If you want to talk to me about this,
please contact me of list. If this was enough for you, please do not feel
you have to send any additional responses.

Hi all,

I was present at the assembly last Saturday and the whole situation is very
complicated. I think, in his emotions to tell his story, Romaine indeed got
two situations mixed up here and the emotional part should not be discussed
on a public list.
Furthermore I know first hand that both the chair of WMNL and WMBE are
involved in the conversations with T&S and the WMF: there is no need for us
to re-review this process, that is still ongoing at the moment.

Please let's close this thread.

Vriendelijke groet,
Ciell


<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Op ma 17 jun. 2019 om 17:39 schreef Caroline Becker <[hidden email]
>:

> I was forced to step up *today* on this mailing list because the
> description of the WIkimania 2018 incident in the first mail was false: the
> claim that "none of us expressed there was a problem" is simply not what
> happened.
>
> And by the way this is exactly why the details of stuff like that are NOT
> shared publicly. For me the incident was closed and well handled by the T&S
> team, I really didn't need a debate where people are expressing their
> uninformed, bar room like opinions about the seriousness of the incident or
> what should or should not have been done.
>
> Caroline
>
>
> Le lun. 17 juin 2019 à 17:14, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]>
> a écrit :
>
> > Hi Dariusz,
> >
> > I understand Caroline wanted to add that she was finding difficult that
> > Romain was not aware of her stress or unease on a specific situation
> > vaguely described there (without any mention to her at all). And that
> later
> > they have talked about it, and she accepted his apologies for that in
> > private. I can't find the least evidence of her being forced to step up
> and
> > expose herself just to clarify that there. As far as I know, it never was
> > in question that some people felt uneasy with some behavior there. They
> > talked about it, apologies were presented, end of story. Or would have
> been
> > end of story, if not for the T&S interference.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> >
> > Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia segunda,
> 17/06/2019
> > à(s) 16:04:
> >
> > > Hi Paulo,
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote:
> > > " I'm referring to message from Caroline" - How have you jumped from
> > > Caroline wanting to further clarify something, to the conclusion that
> the
> > > OP was  "pushing people who felt harassed or mistreated to step
> forward"?
> > >
> > > I'm specifically referring to this sentence " I really do not
> appreciate
> > > having this particular incident discussed here and being forced to step
> > up
> > > like that."
> > >
> > > Yes, she claims to have been "forced to step up", but were you able to
> > > find any evidence for that in the OP? Any accusation is automatically
> > true?
> > >
> > > I believe that the person who voluntarily identified herself as the one
> > > requesting T&S support is not randomly lying about that. I don't think
> it
> > > was an accusation, it was an expression of the personal urge to set the
> > > record straight.
> > >
> > > Again, please note that I'm not referring to what did or did not
> happen a
> > > year ago. I've been trying to express my frustration with discussing
> > > personal details and stories on a public list. I've clearly failed.
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > dj
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12