[Wikimedia-l] reply to Emeric

[Xavier Combelle]

Hi Emeric,

This mail is send to wikimedia-l and to emeric in answer to
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-October/088833.html

>We have a movement employee who brilliantly held management
>responsibilities for 4 years (great longevity for an Executive
>Director…) who asked for help. And what is the answer of the movement,
>of the Wikimedia Foundation? Nothing. Nothing was undertaken to give her
>any kind of listening or help.

To my knowledge, the lack of reaction of you and the board of the
wikimedia france is exactly what happened when the employees of
wikimedia france which were under direct and legal responsibility was
seeking for help. At the opposite the Wikimedia Foundation conducted an
investigation.I don't feel that you are in position to criticize the way
the wikimedia foundation handle the claims of Nathalie which is not
under their direct responsibility when you made worth for person you
ought legally to protect.

>Marie-Alice Mathis, who courageously expressed disapproval of the
>sexist harassment of Nathalie, was also harassed by community members.
>Nathalie and Marie-Alice suffered health damages and had medical leaves
>issued by real general practitioners. The Wikimedia Foundation was
>informed and what did you do? Nothing, or worst: two messages from your
>staff legitimizing the harassment and one from a member of your board
>who publicly stated against Wikimédia France without any prior contact
>with us.
>What kind of help or support did you offer to Marie-Alice?

From my point of view a sexual harassment is several magnitude worse
than a sexist one, even if I don't dismiss the gravity of a sexist
harassment, but I feel like this paragraph is misplaced alongside with
accusation of sexual harassment.


When you say:

>I’ve read an ardent defender of epicene style of writing who is
>accusing of lying other women because of their private then public
>declarations. Having no clue of what is in the procedure. Thank you for
>enlightening me about true fight with feminism.

I believe you refer to this quote of Natacha.

>Personnally, and as an engaged feminist in real life, I dont believe
>one word of these allegations.
>My support goes to Christophe, and like you wrote, these allegations I
>think are not backed up by evidence as far as I have been informed).

To me by saying that Natacha is accusing of Nathalie and Marie-Alice of
lying is putting in her mouth far more than what she said. Natacha  said
that she don't believe one word of the allegations. It is just about her
beliefs not an affirmation that Nathalie or Marie-Alice are lying. So
you are doing a misrepresentation of the reality.

I'm really worried about the accusation of sexual harassment either they
are true (it would be dramatic for Nathalie) either they are false (it
would be damageable for Christophe and in a great extent to all victims
of sexual harassment which their word will be less believed).

By reading the archive of the internal discussion mailing list of
wikimedia france, all public information, and non public information,
the credibility of your discourse is pretty non existent for me. To take
only the public part: there was pretty much none communication from your
part (at this time president of the wikimedia france) and the direction
of the wikimedia france, integral censorship the internal discussion
mailing list of wikimedia france, and when there was communication from
you and direction of wikimedia france, to my understanding it is
systematic gross misrepresentation of the facts when it is not simply
lying. This game with the truth has is paramount evident when there is
contradiction between several version of the same story by you and the
direction of wikimedia france such as the version of the recruting (or
promotion) of Cyrille Bertin (In the reply to time line and before the
general assembly it was said to help Nathalie in her work and during the
general assembly it was said because it was envisioned that Nathalie
leave wikimedia france). At the opposite, despite your repeated
accusation of defamation towards your opponents (which consist of all
the person who take talk except the direction+Rémi Mathis) I never
noticed a single hint of misrepresentation of reality. At the opposite
by several times, objectives fact came to confirm the discourse of the
opponents

Moreover there were a long track record of legal threat towards several
members of the community which to my knowledge was not found on any
evidence and reach any concrete action such as going in front of tribunal. 

In addition, chronologically speaking, the accusation of sexual
harassment against Christophe was raised to my knowledge when you and
the direction was in great difficulty because of the decision of the FDC
and in the same time there was accusation to Christophe to take part of
the decision of FDC.

All that makes me, like Natacha not believe the Nathalie's accusation of
sexual harassment. To make it clear I don't 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The other side of the crisis at WMFR

[Caroline Becker]

Hi Emeric,

I am very pleased that you take mental health seriously. I remember, not so
long ago, that your actions while you were in Wikimedia France had serious
impact on the mental health of at least two of your members.

In January, someone had a meltdown just in front of you. Could you remind
us what you did after that ?

In April, you learnt that your actions as a chair caused me a medical
leave. What can the Foundation and the movement as a whole learn about how
you dealt with the situation ?

Warmly,

Caroline

2017-10-12 12:39 GMT+02:00 Emeric Vallespi :

> Dear Maria,
> Dear all,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees, the executive and the legal
> management of the Wikimedia Foundation have been informed of Nathalie
> Martin's complaint against her former employer now member of your board,
> and then of the criminal complaint against this same person (facts from his
> time in Wikimédia France and other from his time in your Board).
>
> It would have been logical for a board of trustees member to gather her
> testimony. No one has sought to make contact with her. Why?
> At the very least, the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees could have
> requested a copy of the complaint, as well as the various testimonies, so
> that they could study them and make their opinion. We had no solicitation.
> Why?
> From what I see, the Wikimedia Foundation has done everything to stifle
> the problem. Here is the only initiative WMF has taken: paid "independent
> lawyers" (a concept unknown to me…) to "question Christophe". He responded,
> to the general surprise, that there was no problem.
> Do you really feel that this is a serious investigation? Honestly?
> Why did not these lawyers also hear Nathalie?
> Why did these lawyers not ask questions to the Wikimédia France Board of
> trustees members? Only with the testimony of the defendant himself, the
> Wikimedia Foundation today states that there is no problem. ...
> During the site visit, Nathalie proposed to the Wikimedia Foundation
> representatives to organize a confrontation. Not only did she have a flat
> denial, but, moreover, it was replied that it must not be addressed.
> Why did the Wikimedia Foundation not accede to this request for
> confrontation? Not to know the truth which can be too embarrassing to
> assume?
>
> We have a movement employee who brilliantly held management
> responsibilities for 4 years (great longevity for an Executive Director…)
> who asked for help. And what is the answer of the movement, of the
> Wikimedia Foundation? Nothing. Nothing was undertaken to give her any kind
> of listening or help.
>
> Marie-Alice Mathis, who courageously expressed disapproval of the sexist
> harassment of Nathalie, was also harassed by community members. Nathalie
> and Marie-Alice suffered health damages and had medical leaves issued by
> real general practitioners. The Wikimedia Foundation was informed and what
> did you do? Nothing, or worst: two messages from your staff legitimizing
> the harassment and one from a member of your board who publicly stated
> against Wikimédia France without any prior contact with us.
> What kind of help or support did you offer to Marie-Alice?
>
> The outcome of the complaints is not even the issue at this stage and this
> is not my point (I’m not a judge as you or other community member think
> they are).
> The real problem is that today a man in the movement, if he has power
> position, can do absolutely everything he wants without any control. The
> problem is, despite all the empty values you’re communicating on, you
> legitimize whatever the community does. Because the community is the
> measure of all things.
> No objective process is foreseen to protect women (and more generally,
> people) or at least to hear them.
> Do you find this normal for a movement that advocates inclusiveness and
> respect?
>
> I’ve read an ardent defender of epicene style of writing who is accusing
> of lying other women because of their private then public declarations.
> Having no clue of what is in the procedure. Thank you for enlightening me
> about true fight with feminism.
>
> I’m glad that « We take all allegations of harassment seriously », but I
> can not endorse this functioning which goes against legality and simply
> against human values.
>
> N.B: English is not my native language, may you be as tolerant of my
> selected words or sentences construction as with harassing behavior. Thanks
> for your understanding.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Emeric Vallespi
>
> > On 11 Oct 2017, at 19:54, María Sefidari  wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> > We would like to specifically address the allegations related to
> harassment
> > in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment
> > seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that
> > allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation
> > Board Chair dating back to 

[Wikimedia-l] Community review for Annual Plan Grants FDC Process Round 1 2017-2018

[Delphine Ménard]

(Thank you for sharing widely in your communities!)

Dear Wikimedia friends,

The Annual Plan Grants FDC process needs your eyes, brains and analytic
skills again!

Since 1 October, 10 organizations have posted their proposal for review by
the FDC...and you. These consist of annual plans and budgets, with a detail
of what programs and activities those organizations are planning for the
coming 12 months.

This opens the time for community review, a month-long process in which we
need as many people as possible giving their feedback on the proposals,
asking questions or clarifications and analyzing the initiatives that our
movement affiliates and partners have developed for the year to come.

In November, the FDC will meet to make recommendations to Wikimedia
Foundation's Board of Trustees on how to allocate movement funds to these
affiliates in order to achieve the most impact. Your input and
participation will be valuable as they make these recommendations.

You can find the proposals linked from the Community review portal here:

The organizations whose proposals, plans and budgets are available for your
review include: Amical Wikimedia, Wiki Education Foundation, Wikimedia
Argentina, Wikimedia CH, Wikimedia Czech Republic, Wikimedia Israel,
Wikimedia Nederland, Wikimedia Serbia, Wikimedia UK, and Wikimedia
Deutschland, e.V. You can leave your feedback on the proposals discussion
page.

Visit the annual plan grant portal [*] for more information about the
program, the FDC, or upcoming milestones. You can also reach the FDC
support staff at . More information about past
APG rounds, Recommendations, and reports from organizations can be found on
the proposals page: .

*More about community review:*
The APG proposal submission date is followed by a 30-day open comment
period, when anyone is invited to provide input on and ask questions about
a specific proposal on its discussion page. Applicants are also expected to
respond to input and questions during this period, although they are not
able to change the proposal form itself after the submission date.

The FDC will review the discussion pages during their deliberations in
November as one of many inputs to the decision-making process. While anyone
may comment on proposals after the open comment period closes on 31
October, the FDC may not be able to take comments made after this period
into consideration when reaching its decisions.

*How to review:*
Please visit the community review page to view the proposals being
considered and follow the instructions. While the proposals are only
available in English, your comments can be in any language.

*Why your feedback matters:*
We hope this open comment period will add to an in-depth and robust review
of each proposal, and help keep our grantmaking transparent and
collaborative. The FDC highly values feedback and insights from the
Wikimedia community in making its funding recommendations.

Thank you for the time you’ll take to review these proposals.

Best,
Delphine

[*] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals

-- 
Delphine Ménard
Program Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Delphine_(WMF) 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] US withdraws from Unesco

[Cristian Consonni]

Hi,

I hope this won't any GLAM project we have:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/unesco-us-withdraw-israel-bias-trump-palestine-haram-al-sharif-temple-mount-latest-a7996791.html


Cristian

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] New newsletter: Tech Showcase

[Quim Gil]

Tech curious? This is for you:

Tech Showcase 

A newsletter (*) about fresh software for Wikimedia caught on the spot.
Plans, prototypes, releases... Do you have a scoop? Tell us in the Talk
page!

Just click "Subscribe" and you will be notified in your preferred Wikimedia
wiki.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Newsletter:Tech_Showcase

(*) This is a newsletter powered by the Newsletter extension
. Expect one
sentence notifications linking to the tech showcased, not lengthy articles
and prose.

-- 
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The other side of the crisis at WMFR

[Pierre-Selim]

I don't trust any of the harassement accusations made by Nathalie, Emeric,
Marie-Alice and Rémi.

I know for sure that they use this kind of accusations very lightly. They
used it on myself too.
Marie-Alice wrote to me on July 5th, that my membership was refused due to
my long standing relationship with someone who defended a community member
and our values.
In the right of response of the board published on July 30th the motivation
for the refusal of my membership changed to harassement. Well quite
convenient when things are not convincing enough or don't work their way,
they accuse people of harassement.

Thoses accusations came very late in this affair: It is clearly a smear
campaign to divert attention from their own responsabilities.

How can we trust people who are doxxing Wikimedians on regular basis ?
(Nathalie did it at least 4 times since early July).

How can we trust people who are publishing information without regards to
privacy even when a legal counsel of the WMF ask them to remove it ?

I'm sorry, but I'm asking for help now, these people Nathalie, Emeric,
Marie-Alice and Rémi are hurting us, the French community.
Yes community members are getting medical leaves (not only this group of
people), and are also having real physical consequences.


Yours Sincerely,
User:PierreSelim
Sysop & Oversighter on Wikimedia Commons,

2017-10-12 14:50 GMT+02:00 Fæ :

> Taking María's statement on behalf of the WMF by itself, there are a
> couple of simple in-line questions about handling governance I would
> like to make, based on my experience with a number of governance
> issues both within and outside of Wikimedia related organizations.
>
> I'm sticking to this being a governance case, as the WMF Board can
> only be expected to make resolutions on the basis of good governance.
>
> On 11 October 2017 at 18:54, María Sefidari  wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > We would like to specifically address the allegations related to
> harassment
> > in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment
> > seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that
> > allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation
> > Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We
> > immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation
> employed
> > independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on
> the
> > information presented, the investigation found no support for the
> > allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board
> > as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
>
> The statement is short on factual detail despite being described as
> specific. It would be reassuring if the following actions would be
> considered by the Board, and responded to even if rejected:
> 1. Publish the timeline of events, which would be essential for any
> governance review. Several events are implicit in the statement, but
> absent any facts about when or who, they easily lead to later
> confusion.
> 2. Publish the report from the investigators. If necessary this can be
> redacted, however from emails that have been made a public record so
> far, it's hard to imagine what now needs to remain confidential.
> 3. Explain who was contracted to produce the report and why and how
> they were chosen.
> 4. Explain what information has been presented, so there can be no
> doubt whether the WMF and the Board have been presented with all the
> information available and the steps taken to ensure potential bias in
> how information was selected was minimized, for example by not
> pre-selecting who to talk to, rather than giving the investigators a
> free hand to ask for interviews.
>
> > The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation
> if
> > presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the
> > allegations to be without merit.
>
> This closing sentence seem to give a heavy implication that the Board
> is aware that more information may exist than was used. It seems
> unhelpful to have an investigation or review that does not take
> proactive steps to gather information from all the stakeholders
> identified so that it can stick as a final resolution. In the absence
> of specifics, it's hard to imagine that anyone outside of the WMF
> board will be able to understand if you are missing any critical
> information, yet somehow that appears to be what you are expecting.
>
> > On behalf of the Board,
> >
> >
> > María Sefidari
>
> Thanks for making a statement as a board to the email list, it's a
> helpful communication channel to use this way. I appreciate that a
> governance based response to allegations against a named trustee, will
> not be the same as judging a harassment case that should happen
> elsewhere.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of Open Foundation West Africa

[kayode yussuf]

Congratulations to Felix, Raphael and the OFWA team.
Your dedication paid off. Congrats.
Kayode Yussuf 

On Friday, October 13, 2017, 12:10:17 AM GMT+1, Kirill Lokshin 
 wrote:  
 
 Hi everyone!

I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
Open Foundation West Africa [1] as a Wikimedia User Group. The group aims
to extend the reach of Wikimedia movement activities in West Africa through
open education programs, digitizing open resources, preserving cultural and
heritage items for educational purposes, and promoting content about the
West African region.

Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!

Regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Foundation_West_Africa
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,