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

[mathieu stumpf guntz]

Saluton Samuel kaj ĉiuj,

Le 23/11/2017 à 22:39, Samuel Klein a écrit :

On Nov 23, 2017 2:55 PM, "Emeric Vallespi" 
wrote:



the Wikimedia community protect itself and its members by harassing and
defaming people who question
Please don't turn it to a inaccurate "us versus them" representation. 
Sure there are people in our community that misbehaves in reaction to a 
feeling of aggression. But condemning the whole community for also 
including this kind of behaviour is not constructive. We also have 
people who try, not vehemently, to listen to each party, bring 
compassion, and try to help solving conflicts through dialogue as far as 
possible.


Of course our community is not perfect, we are human, and nothing 
characterize better human beings than erroneous behaviours. But as far 
as I know, we don't promote harassment, or any form of violence, as an 
acceptable solution to problems we face.

I cannot imagine why anyone would attempt to defame you, when they cannot
hope to surpass the eloquence and thoroughness of your own writing.
Well, they are situation where having more reasonable arguments are not 
enough to meet prevalence in decisions. Typically when different 
decision can be imposed by force. That may be physical violence, 
psychological abuse, hierarchical authoritarian misconduct, and so on.


People are not always reacting with violent means because they are 
inherently wired to such a behaviour as first reaction. Often they will 
act like that as a last resort because they themselves feel assaulted 
and see no other mean to react.


I think it would be healthy to redact pattern/anti-pattern for that kind 
of problematic and extensively promote them. Currently we don't have 
much material pertaining harassment in our pattern library 
.


Distingeble,
mathieu



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



___
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

[Emeric VALLESPI]

One must have the courage of one's words and assume them.
There is a very simple way of knowing who is lying: can Sylvain publish the
letter in question? I will be really interested to see when he was punished
for "having a girlfriend".
Furthermore, I can't agree more with Craig and as I said, what a shame to
expose all of this here publicly. But be sure that when I'll stop to read
false statements or that I'm providing "alternative facts", I won't need
anymore to write here.

Cheers,
--
Emeric Vallespi



2017-11-24 3:34 GMT+01:00 Craig Franklin :

> Can I suggest to all parties that, as was the case last time this came up
> here, raking this conflict over the coals here on a mailing list where very
> few of us have direct knowledge of the situation, or the power to do
> anything about it in any case, is probably not helpful for anyone?  I am
> especially uncomfortable at the notion of the discussion of people's HR
> records and personal lives in a public forum such as this.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 24 November 2017 at 06:23, Xavier Combelle 
> wrote:
>
> > Emeric,
> >
> > When you say, that no sanction has filed his HR record, you are half or
> > completely lying.
> > The existence of a "rappel à l'ordre" (warning)
> > is an argument which can support fire someone of the staff so it should
> > be in a HR record.
> >
> > In the same way Sylvain never said he is writing his email on behalf of
> > an union of the employees of Wikimedia France
> > but that he is the representative of the the employees of Wikimedia
> > France which is plenty true.
> >
> > From the whole wikimedia france, movement, during the #wmfrgate, it was
> > only you Emeric and the old direction as a whole
> > that your declaration don't match the facts or your subsequent
> > declaration, as it it happened during the #bandeaugate in summer last
> year.
> >
> > I have still to see the said "lies" from your opponent which contradicts
> > other public information (apart the words of you and the old direction)
> >
> > Xavier Combelle
> >
> > Le 23/11/2017 à 20:54, Emeric Vallespi a écrit :
> > > Sylvain,
> > >
> > > I have to answer to your email where you’re especially lying.
> > > You say that you’re writing on behalf of a union section of the
> > employees of Wikimedia France but I’m personally curious to know the
> weight
> > of this union section. My question is actually: who else is represented
> by
> > your email, if not yourself?
> > >
> > > Moreover, you’re saying that you received a « warning » (?) because you
> > had a girlfriend. Is it serious?
> > > Your employer asked you to distinguish professional time and personal
> > time. Indeed, you were reminded that you had to dedicate your work hours
> to
> > the missions that were devoted to you and not to solve problems related
> to
> > your personal life, especially if it interferes with organization’s
> > activities and governance. It is also you who came, on your own, to tell
> us
> > about the complexity of your personal and relationship situation in order
> > to benefit of professional arrangements. The direction never looked for,
> > nor asked, any information on this subject.
> > >
> > > You’re mentioning the cancellation of the letter. Since, to my
> > knowledge, no sanction has been filed to your HR record, I do not really
> > see what have been canceled.
> > > I can understand that supporting your new board of trustees, involved
> in
> > the governance issues and in the criminal complaints filed is critical to
> > show your loyalty.
> > >
> > > Do you know how impatient am I to discover your next fable? I guess the
> > only one never mentioned yet is maybe about a murder or something
> (although
> > a streetfight scenario has already been invented x’D).
> > >
> > > I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the
> > community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not
> > deceived by a scenario built from scratch.
> > > Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public
> > accusations still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter
> in
> > this conflict with some people.
> > >
> > > For months, several lies have been told by different people. Because
> the
> > Wikimedia community protect itself and its members by harassing and
> > defaming people who question the probity and integrity of some of its
> > members doesn’t make of this lies the truth.
> > >
> > > Best regards to all of you,
> > > --
> > > Emeric Vallespi
> > >
> > >> On 22 Nov 2017, at 13:37, Sylvain Boissel <
> sylvain.bois...@wikimedia.fr>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Katherine,
> > >>
> > >> 2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher :
> > >>
> > >>> [...]
> > >>> We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil
> > >>> d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as
> > they
> > >>> work to address and resolve these and other 

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

[Craig Franklin]

Can I suggest to all parties that, as was the case last time this came up
here, raking this conflict over the coals here on a mailing list where very
few of us have direct knowledge of the situation, or the power to do
anything about it in any case, is probably not helpful for anyone?  I am
especially uncomfortable at the notion of the discussion of people's HR
records and personal lives in a public forum such as this.

Cheers,
Craig

On 24 November 2017 at 06:23, Xavier Combelle 
wrote:

> Emeric,
>
> When you say, that no sanction has filed his HR record, you are half or
> completely lying.
> The existence of a "rappel à l'ordre" (warning)
> is an argument which can support fire someone of the staff so it should
> be in a HR record.
>
> In the same way Sylvain never said he is writing his email on behalf of
> an union of the employees of Wikimedia France
> but that he is the representative of the the employees of Wikimedia
> France which is plenty true.
>
> From the whole wikimedia france, movement, during the #wmfrgate, it was
> only you Emeric and the old direction as a whole
> that your declaration don't match the facts or your subsequent
> declaration, as it it happened during the #bandeaugate in summer last year.
>
> I have still to see the said "lies" from your opponent which contradicts
> other public information (apart the words of you and the old direction)
>
> Xavier Combelle
>
> Le 23/11/2017 à 20:54, Emeric Vallespi a écrit :
> > Sylvain,
> >
> > I have to answer to your email where you’re especially lying.
> > You say that you’re writing on behalf of a union section of the
> employees of Wikimedia France but I’m personally curious to know the weight
> of this union section. My question is actually: who else is represented by
> your email, if not yourself?
> >
> > Moreover, you’re saying that you received a « warning » (?) because you
> had a girlfriend. Is it serious?
> > Your employer asked you to distinguish professional time and personal
> time. Indeed, you were reminded that you had to dedicate your work hours to
> the missions that were devoted to you and not to solve problems related to
> your personal life, especially if it interferes with organization’s
> activities and governance. It is also you who came, on your own, to tell us
> about the complexity of your personal and relationship situation in order
> to benefit of professional arrangements. The direction never looked for,
> nor asked, any information on this subject.
> >
> > You’re mentioning the cancellation of the letter. Since, to my
> knowledge, no sanction has been filed to your HR record, I do not really
> see what have been canceled.
> > I can understand that supporting your new board of trustees, involved in
> the governance issues and in the criminal complaints filed is critical to
> show your loyalty.
> >
> > Do you know how impatient am I to discover your next fable? I guess the
> only one never mentioned yet is maybe about a murder or something (although
> a streetfight scenario has already been invented x’D).
> >
> > I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the
> community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not
> deceived by a scenario built from scratch.
> > Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public
> accusations still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter in
> this conflict with some people.
> >
> > For months, several lies have been told by different people. Because the
> Wikimedia community protect itself and its members by harassing and
> defaming people who question the probity and integrity of some of its
> members doesn’t make of this lies the truth.
> >
> > Best regards to all of you,
> > --
> > Emeric Vallespi
> >
> >> On 22 Nov 2017, at 13:37, Sylvain Boissel 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Katherine,
> >>
> >> 2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher :
> >>
> >>> [...]
> >>> We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil
> >>> d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as
> they
> >>> work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The
> >>> Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are
> already
> >>> cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the
> >>> volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As
> part
> >>> of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will
> independently
> >>> handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and
> >>> Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful,
> >>> inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
> >>>
> >>> I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded.
> Many
> >>> dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including
> current
> >>> community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and

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

[Xavier Combelle]

Emeric,

When you say, that no sanction has filed his HR record, you are half or
completely lying.
The existence of a "rappel à l'ordre" (warning)
is an argument which can support fire someone of the staff so it should
be in a HR record.

In the same way Sylvain never said he is writing his email on behalf of
an union of the employees of Wikimedia France
but that he is the representative of the the employees of Wikimedia
France which is plenty true.

From the whole wikimedia france, movement, during the #wmfrgate, it was
only you Emeric and the old direction as a whole
that your declaration don't match the facts or your subsequent
declaration, as it it happened during the #bandeaugate in summer last year.

I have still to see the said "lies" from your opponent which contradicts
other public information (apart the words of you and the old direction)

Xavier Combelle

Le 23/11/2017 à 20:54, Emeric Vallespi a écrit :
> Sylvain,
>
> I have to answer to your email where you’re especially lying.
> You say that you’re writing on behalf of a union section of the employees of 
> Wikimedia France but I’m personally curious to know the weight of this union 
> section. My question is actually: who else is represented by your email, if 
> not yourself?
>
> Moreover, you’re saying that you received a « warning » (?) because you had a 
> girlfriend. Is it serious?
> Your employer asked you to distinguish professional time and personal time. 
> Indeed, you were reminded that you had to dedicate your work hours to the 
> missions that were devoted to you and not to solve problems related to your 
> personal life, especially if it interferes with organization’s activities and 
> governance. It is also you who came, on your own, to tell us about the 
> complexity of your personal and relationship situation in order to benefit of 
> professional arrangements. The direction never looked for, nor asked, any 
> information on this subject.
>
> You’re mentioning the cancellation of the letter. Since, to my knowledge, no 
> sanction has been filed to your HR record, I do not really see what have been 
> canceled.
> I can understand that supporting your new board of trustees, involved in the 
> governance issues and in the criminal complaints filed is critical to show 
> your loyalty.
>
> Do you know how impatient am I to discover your next fable? I guess the only 
> one never mentioned yet is maybe about a murder or something (although a 
> streetfight scenario has already been invented x’D).
>
> I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the 
> community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not deceived 
> by a scenario built from scratch.
> Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public accusations 
> still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter in this conflict 
> with some people.
>
> For months, several lies have been told by different people. Because the 
> Wikimedia community protect itself and its members by harassing and defaming 
> people who question the probity and integrity of some of its members doesn’t 
> make of this lies the truth.
>
> Best regards to all of you,
> --
> Emeric Vallespi
>
>> On 22 Nov 2017, at 13:37, Sylvain Boissel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Katherine,
>>
>> 2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher :
>>
>>> [...]
>>> We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil
>>> d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as they
>>> work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The
>>> Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are already
>>> cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the
>>> volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As part
>>> of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will independently
>>> handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and
>>> Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful,
>>> inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
>>>
>>> I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded. Many
>>> dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including current
>>> community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and staff
>>> members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months. Those
>>> outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and friends
>>> have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds with
>>> one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a renewed
>>> sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we all
>>> desire.
>> As the representative of the local branch of the labor union
>> ASSO-Solidaires at Wikimédia France, I wanted to thank you and the WMF
>> staff members who took part in the site visit in Paris in July  (namely
>> Katy Love, 

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

[Alphos OGame]

Good evening Émeric, good evening all.

Allow me to reply. Oh wait, that's right, I don't need you to allow the
publication of emails on this mailing list - this sure comes as a change,
and a welcome one too !

I won't be speaking of any member of the community, whether volunteer or
employee, it is not the purpose of this email.

You shockingly ask of a union representative the identities of other
unionized workers. It may come as a surprise to you, but, at least in
France, whether one is unionized or not is part of their private life, and
should in no circumstance be divulged by anyone other than themselves,
should they feel the desire to. That desire can't be coerced, and nobody
should rob someone else of their private life or its divulgation.
Aside from that, *in the unlikely event* the union section comprises a
single person, or roughly 10% of all Wikimédia France employees, that would
still be a feat, and more than the national average of about 5% in the
private sector and just under 10% overall ; but union sections MUST (RFC
2119) be composed of at least two people, per article L2142-1 of french
Labour Law. So there's at least two employees in that section, which is at
least 20% (give or take), way above the national average.

Lastly, I'd like to address your accusations of lying.
It seems to me that the only answer you ever provide to any criticism is
that it's all a lie. In other words, you're quick to slap everyone with
Kellyanne Conway's motto, "fake news", but you lack her talent and, as
she's had dips on it, the element of surprise.
I've faced them before myself, when I tried to explain to the rest of the
members an email YOU sent to discussions@, the non-public mailing list of
Wikimédia France, and its subtext. Specifically, the email I sent on May
6th was rejected, and I was told on May 7th by a representative of the
Board of Trustees (of which you were chairman) it was all a "web of
ravings" ("marasme de spéculations") that was based on former members' side
of the story — former members which, by the way, I hadn't had any
meaningful contact in a few years — ; when in fact, it was solely based on
YOUR version of the story, using basic reasoning skills.
As it turns out, and as a few people can attest, a good amount of what I "
*raved*" in my email turned out to not just be generally true, but rather
accurate as well.
So forgive me to say, but I feel you lack proper footing to decide on who's
lying and who's not.

Really, the whole story is, for lack of a better word, and even though
Donald Trump has already used it, "sad" ; and it would be best for the
former Board of Trustees, if not to apologize to the people involved, to at
least lay low about it.

Happy Thanksgiving dinner to the ones who have it, and happy
nondenominational evening to the ones who don't.

Alphos
Member of WMFr, despite the odds


2017-11-23 20:54 GMT+01:00 Emeric Vallespi :

> Sylvain,
>
> I have to answer to your email where you’re especially lying.
> You say that you’re writing on behalf of a union section of the employees
> of Wikimedia France but I’m personally curious to know the weight of this
> union section. My question is actually: who else is represented by your
> email, if not yourself?
>
> Moreover, you’re saying that you received a « warning » (?) because you
> had a girlfriend. Is it serious?
> Your employer asked you to distinguish professional time and personal
> time. Indeed, you were reminded that you had to dedicate your work hours to
> the missions that were devoted to you and not to solve problems related to
> your personal life, especially if it interferes with organization’s
> activities and governance. It is also you who came, on your own, to tell us
> about the complexity of your personal and relationship situation in order
> to benefit of professional arrangements. The direction never looked for,
> nor asked, any information on this subject.
>
> You’re mentioning the cancellation of the letter. Since, to my knowledge,
> no sanction has been filed to your HR record, I do not really see what have
> been canceled.
> I can understand that supporting your new board of trustees, involved in
> the governance issues and in the criminal complaints filed is critical to
> show your loyalty.
>
> Do you know how impatient am I to discover your next fable? I guess the
> only one never mentioned yet is maybe about a murder or something (although
> a streetfight scenario has already been invented x’D).
>
> I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the
> community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not
> deceived by a scenario built from scratch.
> Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public accusations
> still shows that only personal interests and vainness matter in this
> conflict with some people.
>
> For months, several lies have been told by different people. Because the
> Wikimedia community protect itself and its 

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

[Gabriel Thullen]

Dear Sylvain,

Thank you for your message and thank you for showing us that our Wikimedia
employees are white collar workers, and as such they also have the right to
be part of an organized labor movement. For those who do not know me well,
I am a board member of the Geneva public sector labor union association (11
different labor unions), so I strongly encourage initiatives like the
French one.

I am also a strong believer in settling disputes through negotiations and
discussions between the different parties involved. A local labor union
branch is a great way to ensure that the employees can voice their
grievances. This whole unfortunate situation might have been avoided if the
employees had been able to express their distress, and if they could have
received the support of a larger labor union used to dealing with this type
of management issues.

Once again, thank you Sylvain for telling us about this. I now hope that
you will all forgive me for preaching about labor unions...

Best regards
Gabe

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> On Nov 23, 2017 2:55 PM, "Emeric Vallespi" 
> wrote:
>
> 
>
> the Wikimedia community protect itself and its members by harassing and
> defaming people who question
>
>
> I cannot imagine why anyone would attempt to defame you, when they cannot
> hope to surpass the eloquence and thoroughness of your own writing.
>
> —Sam.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
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

[Samuel Klein]

On Nov 23, 2017 2:55 PM, "Emeric Vallespi" 
wrote:



the Wikimedia community protect itself and its members by harassing and
defaming people who question


I cannot imagine why anyone would attempt to defame you, when they cannot
hope to surpass the eloquence and thoroughness of your own writing.

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

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

[Emeric Vallespi]

Sylvain,

I have to answer to your email where you’re especially lying.
You say that you’re writing on behalf of a union section of the employees of 
Wikimedia France but I’m personally curious to know the weight of this union 
section. My question is actually: who else is represented by your email, if not 
yourself?

Moreover, you’re saying that you received a « warning » (?) because you had a 
girlfriend. Is it serious?
Your employer asked you to distinguish professional time and personal time. 
Indeed, you were reminded that you had to dedicate your work hours to the 
missions that were devoted to you and not to solve problems related to your 
personal life, especially if it interferes with organization’s activities and 
governance. It is also you who came, on your own, to tell us about the 
complexity of your personal and relationship situation in order to benefit of 
professional arrangements. The direction never looked for, nor asked, any 
information on this subject.

You’re mentioning the cancellation of the letter. Since, to my knowledge, no 
sanction has been filed to your HR record, I do not really see what have been 
canceled.
I can understand that supporting your new board of trustees, involved in the 
governance issues and in the criminal complaints filed is critical to show your 
loyalty.

Do you know how impatient am I to discover your next fable? I guess the only 
one never mentioned yet is maybe about a murder or something (although a 
streetfight scenario has already been invented x’D).

I think it was important to re-explain all those points so that the community, 
which is - again - unnecessarily taken as witness, is not deceived by a 
scenario built from scratch.
Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but public accusations still 
shows that only personal interests and vainness matter in this conflict with 
some people.

For months, several lies have been told by different people. Because the 
Wikimedia community protect itself and its members by harassing and defaming 
people who question the probity and integrity of some of its members doesn’t 
make of this lies the truth.

Best regards to all of you,
--
Emeric Vallespi

> On 22 Nov 2017, at 13:37, Sylvain Boissel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Katherine,
> 
> 2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher :
> 
>> [...]
> 
>> We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil
>> d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as they
>> work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The
>> Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are already
>> cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the
>> volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As part
>> of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will independently
>> handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and
>> Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful,
>> inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
>> 
>> I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded. Many
>> dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including current
>> community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and staff
>> members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months. Those
>> outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and friends
>> have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds with
>> one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a renewed
>> sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we all
>> desire.
> 
> As the representative of the local branch of the labor union
> ASSO-Solidaires at Wikimédia France, I wanted to thank you and the WMF
> staff members who took part in the site visit in Paris in July  (namely
> Katy Love, Winifred Olliff, Stephen Laporte and James Baldwin) for hearing
> the distress of the staff members at a time when Wikimédia France's board
> plainly refused to discuss with the staff.
> 
> I also wanted to confirm that things are getting better with the new board
> elected in September.
> 
> I cannot speak about what my coworkers went through without asking them
> first, but I can share an example from my own story: in February, I was
> issued a « rappel à l'ordre » (warning) by the former direction and
> board, accusing
> me of disloyalty to the chapter because I had a girlfriend. It was
> cancelled this month by the new board, and this is a huge relief to me.
> 
> Best regards,
> Sylvain.
> 
> -- 
> *Sylvain Boissel*
> Délégué du personnel et Responsable de la section syndicale ASSO-Solidaires
> *WIKIMÉDIA FRANCE*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 

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

[Sylvain Boissel]

Hi Katherine,

2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher :

> [...]
>

> We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil
> d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as they
> work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The
> Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are already
> cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the
> volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As part
> of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will independently
> handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and
> Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful,
> inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
>
> I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded. Many
> dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including current
> community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and staff
> members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months. Those
> outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and friends
> have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds with
> one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a renewed
> sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we all
> desire.
>

As the representative of the local branch of the labor union
ASSO-Solidaires at Wikimédia France, I wanted to thank you and the WMF
staff members who took part in the site visit in Paris in July  (namely
Katy Love, Winifred Olliff, Stephen Laporte and James Baldwin) for hearing
the distress of the staff members at a time when Wikimédia France's board
plainly refused to discuss with the staff.

I also wanted to confirm that things are getting better with the new board
elected in September.

I cannot speak about what my coworkers went through without asking them
first, but I can share an example from my own story: in February, I was
issued a « rappel à l'ordre » (warning) by the former direction and
board, accusing
me of disloyalty to the chapter because I had a girlfriend. It was
cancelled this month by the new board, and this is a huge relief to me.

Best regards,
Sylvain.

-- 
*Sylvain Boissel*
Délégué du personnel et Responsable de la section syndicale ASSO-Solidaires
*WIKIMÉDIA FRANCE*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Joseph Seddon]

I must echo Lodewijk's words.

Washing dirty linen in public is beneficial to no one and damages everyone
involved including those making the accusations. There will be and are
lessons to be learned but right now there is a huge chilling effect from
the presence of lawyers on many sides and there is nothing to be gained
from this thread. There are proper avenues to deal with this, and if you
deem them appropriate then use hem, but this place is not one of those
avenues.

Regards
Seddon

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> While this topic is painful and important, I don't have the feeling any
> progress is being made by continuing this tirade on this mailing list.
>
> I can see that hiring lawyers to investigate, will (at least in my culture)
> always have a whiff of subjectivity. Even though this seems (from what I
> understand) to be the default approach in the US, which is the primary
> context in which the WMF operates. I would like to emphasize one sentence
> in Katherine's email: "the Foundation remains fully committed to reviewing
> and investigating additional information, if presented, of sexual or other
> harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation staff or board
> member. " This sounds to me as an invitation to the plaintiffs (*) to
> request to reopen the investigation and present further testimony and
> evidence. For obvious privacy concerns, I imagine this won't happen in
> public. I hope that they will make use of this offer.
>
> What I don't see however, is what the alternate pathway is that the
> plaintiffs have in mind. It is suggested that this is a complaint that has
> been filed with the judicial system in France, which makes it even harder
> for anyone involved to publicly comment (while I'm not legally schooled, I
> suspect that any lawyer would probably advise against it). Therefore, I
> don't have the impression that continuing the very personal discussion
> about individuals without offering an alternative pathway is particularly
> helpful - especially as we don't even know in detail what the allegations
> are (a crucial piece of context). I'm even more concerned where discussions
> start to be held through the media (although I'm not sure I misunderstood
> that part).
>
> The plaintiffs have however also mentioned that the general climate should
> be improved. That seems a topic where public conversations can actually be
> helpful. I don't have a shred of doubt that there was a toxic climate in
> Wikimedia France. Both parties accuse each other for being responsible for
> that. What I would be more interested in, is what you as the WMFR
> community, or we as the international community, could have done to
> de-escalate that situation much earlier. This is not the first conflict
> situation in our movement, and I fear it'll be the last.
>
> When the dust has settled a bit, I would be in favor of asking (a subset
> of) the Affiliations Committee to look into the situation (and perhaps
> similar conflicts in other communities that were less visible), and come
> with some recommendations. This will probably not be very satisfactory for
> the involved parties where it comes to 'justice being done' - but it may
> help avoid more pain in the future.
>
> With a sad heart,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> (*) The reason I'm not mentioning people by name is not because I don't
> respect them, but because I don't necessarily want this thread to turn up
> in search results for eternity. I imagine others may have similar good
> faith reasons.
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Frans Grijzenhout 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Remi, You're mail is one big complaint, may I remind you to the last
> > phrase of your Board Handbook? It states: Fortes capacité
> d’auto-évaluation
> > ​ (​Strong self-assessment capability). Thank you, Frans
> >
> >
> > *Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair
> > +31 6 5333 9499
> > --
> > *Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland*
> > Mariaplaats 3  -  3511 LH Utrecht
> > Kamer van Koophandel 17189036
> > http://www.wikimedia.nl/
> >
> > 2017-10-20 13:49 GMT+02:00 Rémi Mathis :
> >
> > > Katherine,
> > >
> > > I told you a month ago "Maybe you should reply as a responsible human
> > being
> > > and not as a trained crisis communication people". This is truer
> > everyday.
> > >
> > > What did you write this email yesterday, and not one,two, three months
> > ago?
> > > Because I left Wikimedia France, because a Fields Medallist left,
> because
> > > the president of Picasso Museum left, and because journalists began to
> > talk
> > > about the harassment and the violence of some members of the community.
> > > Because the fact that Nathalie Martin had filed a complaint against
> > > Christophe Henner begins to spread not only amongst the community but
> > also
> > > outside.
> > > Because the articles made people aware of the problem and that they are
> > > victims too, and new testimonies are being 

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

[Lodewijk]

While this topic is painful and important, I don't have the feeling any
progress is being made by continuing this tirade on this mailing list.

I can see that hiring lawyers to investigate, will (at least in my culture)
always have a whiff of subjectivity. Even though this seems (from what I
understand) to be the default approach in the US, which is the primary
context in which the WMF operates. I would like to emphasize one sentence
in Katherine's email: "the Foundation remains fully committed to reviewing
and investigating additional information, if presented, of sexual or other
harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation staff or board
member. " This sounds to me as an invitation to the plaintiffs (*) to
request to reopen the investigation and present further testimony and
evidence. For obvious privacy concerns, I imagine this won't happen in
public. I hope that they will make use of this offer.

What I don't see however, is what the alternate pathway is that the
plaintiffs have in mind. It is suggested that this is a complaint that has
been filed with the judicial system in France, which makes it even harder
for anyone involved to publicly comment (while I'm not legally schooled, I
suspect that any lawyer would probably advise against it). Therefore, I
don't have the impression that continuing the very personal discussion
about individuals without offering an alternative pathway is particularly
helpful - especially as we don't even know in detail what the allegations
are (a crucial piece of context). I'm even more concerned where discussions
start to be held through the media (although I'm not sure I misunderstood
that part).

The plaintiffs have however also mentioned that the general climate should
be improved. That seems a topic where public conversations can actually be
helpful. I don't have a shred of doubt that there was a toxic climate in
Wikimedia France. Both parties accuse each other for being responsible for
that. What I would be more interested in, is what you as the WMFR
community, or we as the international community, could have done to
de-escalate that situation much earlier. This is not the first conflict
situation in our movement, and I fear it'll be the last.

When the dust has settled a bit, I would be in favor of asking (a subset
of) the Affiliations Committee to look into the situation (and perhaps
similar conflicts in other communities that were less visible), and come
with some recommendations. This will probably not be very satisfactory for
the involved parties where it comes to 'justice being done' - but it may
help avoid more pain in the future.

With a sad heart,

Lodewijk

(*) The reason I'm not mentioning people by name is not because I don't
respect them, but because I don't necessarily want this thread to turn up
in search results for eternity. I imagine others may have similar good
faith reasons.

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Frans Grijzenhout 
wrote:

> Hi Remi, You're mail is one big complaint, may I remind you to the last
> phrase of your Board Handbook? It states: Fortes capacité d’auto-évaluation
> ​ (​Strong self-assessment capability). Thank you, Frans
>
>
> *Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair
> +31 6 5333 9499
> --
> *Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland*
> Mariaplaats 3  -  3511 LH Utrecht
> Kamer van Koophandel 17189036
> http://www.wikimedia.nl/
>
> 2017-10-20 13:49 GMT+02:00 Rémi Mathis :
>
> > Katherine,
> >
> > I told you a month ago "Maybe you should reply as a responsible human
> being
> > and not as a trained crisis communication people". This is truer
> everyday.
> >
> > What did you write this email yesterday, and not one,two, three months
> ago?
> > Because I left Wikimedia France, because a Fields Medallist left, because
> > the president of Picasso Museum left, and because journalists began to
> talk
> > about the harassment and the violence of some members of the community.
> > Because the fact that Nathalie Martin had filed a complaint against
> > Christophe Henner begins to spread not only amongst the community but
> also
> > outside.
> > Because the articles made people aware of the problem and that they are
> > victims too, and new testimonies are being sent to journalists.
> > Because you met Christophe Henner in person the day before.
> >
> > Because you are doing your job to protect your boss and make as little
> > noise as possible. But when I donate to Wikimedia, when I edit Wikipedia,
> > that's not what I want from you. I want a safe community.
> >
> > I wrote to you, Christophe and your team more than ten times between July
> > and today. I even met your Legal Conselor and Christophe Henner to talk
> > about the harassment. I never got an email back from you. Not a single
> word
> > to a private message I sent. You only answered once on Twitter, because
> it
> > was a public conversation.
> >
> > Now, I'm for you "an individual", you never only *say my name*.
> > At the same 

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

[Frans Grijzenhout]

Hi Remi, You're mail is one big complaint, may I remind you to the last
phrase of your Board Handbook? It states: Fortes capacité d’auto-évaluation
​ (​Strong self-assessment capability). Thank you, Frans


*Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair
+31 6 5333 9499
-- 
*Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland*
Mariaplaats 3  -  3511 LH Utrecht
Kamer van Koophandel 17189036
http://www.wikimedia.nl/

2017-10-20 13:49 GMT+02:00 Rémi Mathis :

> Katherine,
>
> I told you a month ago "Maybe you should reply as a responsible human being
> and not as a trained crisis communication people". This is truer everyday.
>
> What did you write this email yesterday, and not one,two, three months ago?
> Because I left Wikimedia France, because a Fields Medallist left, because
> the president of Picasso Museum left, and because journalists began to talk
> about the harassment and the violence of some members of the community.
> Because the fact that Nathalie Martin had filed a complaint against
> Christophe Henner begins to spread not only amongst the community but also
> outside.
> Because the articles made people aware of the problem and that they are
> victims too, and new testimonies are being sent to journalists.
> Because you met Christophe Henner in person the day before.
>
> Because you are doing your job to protect your boss and make as little
> noise as possible. But when I donate to Wikimedia, when I edit Wikipedia,
> that's not what I want from you. I want a safe community.
>
> I wrote to you, Christophe and your team more than ten times between July
> and today. I even met your Legal Conselor and Christophe Henner to talk
> about the harassment. I never got an email back from you. Not a single word
> to a private message I sent. You only answered once on Twitter, because it
> was a public conversation.
>
> Now, I'm for you "an individual", you never only *say my name*.
> At the same time, I receive a letter from Henner's lawyer trying to make me
> remove my post.
> Still keeping people quiet instead of accepting and therefore tackling the
> problems.
>
> I spent nine years working for the movement as a benevolent member. I have
> been chair for 3 years, I worked 9-12pm for the movement for years, I was
> threatened by the French Intelligence Service. And thanks to this
> dedication, I made a lot of friends ; I met a lot of extraordinay people ;
> we contracted with the Bibliothèque nationale, Versailles Palace,
> Ministries, etc. We made a huge and very good job.
>
> Now, do you really think I'm leaving with no reason? Do you really think
> I'm a liar or frivolous? Do you think I'm being manipulated by an evil
> witch we had to get rid of - as some say to journalists and some add (with
> neutrality of course) to the Wikipedia article about me?
>
> Denouncing the violence, I'm losing 30 of my closest friends, stopping one
> of my favouriste activities and canceling 9 years of my life.
>
> Sending an email like this one, "managing" instead of "caring", you only do
> the job you're getting paid for.
> But, maybe you also realise that you are shatterring lives of
> "individuals"... who have no names. But since we don't even have names,
> since there is no violence or harassment problem to deal with, I'm sure you
> will never have any problem to look at yourself in a mirror.
>
> Even Hollywood is facing the violence and harassment problem. Wikimedia
> still doesn't.
> I'm sad. But now I'm only sad for you and one of the greatest human
> projects of the time, you are currently making vile and foul.
> As for me, it's over.
>
> X, individual [used to be] associated with our movement
>
>
>
>
> On 19 October 2017 at 23:19, Katherine Maher  wrote:
>
> > Everyone,
> >
> > The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our
> > community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or
> > ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take all
> > harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the
> > appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My goal
> here
> > today is to provide more information about the actions of the Wikimedia
> > Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in which
> > our movement finds itself.
> >
> > As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the
> French
> > Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies, and
> the
> > Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia
> > France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a number
> of
> > the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French
> > Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the French
> > community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and concerned
> > Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by
> > community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past 

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Emeric VALLESPI  wrote:

> Katherine,
>
> [...]



> The lawyers you have appointed have been paid by the Foundation. They
> *only* interviewed the defendant.




Is this true? Because if what Emeric and Remi say is in fact true, it seems
inappropriate to characterise what happened as an "investigation". An
investigation listens to both sides.

If lawyers hear from one side only, that's called "seeking legal advice".
In other words, "We consulted a lawyer, and they advised us that the
allegations would not stand up in court."

More clarity on this would be appreciated. So, whom did, and didn't, the
expert French legal counsel appointed by the WMF interview?

Andreas





> In these conditions, how could the
> outcome not be favorable to his version?
>
> You did not answer any of my previous questions:
>
> Why did not the Wikimedia Foundation hear Nathalie Martin at her request?
> Just to have her version of the facts, it would have been - maybe ... - a
> good idea.
> Why did the experts who were supposed to conduct an adversarial
> investigation not discussed with Nathalie or Marie-Alice? Would not that
> have been the least of the things? Why did not they hear the board of
> trustees’ member? Why did you refuse to organize, as you (or your
> representatives) were offered, a confrontation between
> complainant/defendant?
> Why fear so much to hear the version of Nathalie?
>
> You have witnessed what Marie-Alice and Nathalie have experienced with
> social media as well as on the mailing-list you're hosting. You've done
> absolutely nothing to protect them.
> You're mentioning complaints that have been filed to the Support and Safety
> committee, which has no legal existence in the real world (outside of the
> movement). I am talking about real criminal complaints in a police station.
> Whether you can compare the two shows your total unconsciousness.
>
> Again, the role of the Wikimedia Foundation is not to determine whether the
> current Chair is guilty or innocent. Nor whether the acts are sexual or
> moral harassment.
> Your role, as an organization, is, to a minimum, to hear the victims and to
> ensure their protection. You have undertaken everything to mask this
> situation in order to guarantee your tranquility. It is a shame for a
> movement that wants to be humanistic.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Emeric Vallespi
>
> 2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher :
>
> > Everyone,
> >
> > The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our
> > community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or
> > ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take all
> > harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the
> > appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My goal
> here
> > today is to provide more information about the actions of the Wikimedia
> > Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in which
> > our movement finds itself.
> >
> > As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the
> French
> > Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies, and
> the
> > Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia
> > France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a number
> of
> > the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French
> > Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the French
> > community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and concerned
> > Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by
> > community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past months the
> > Foundation has received formal and informal complaints alleging
> harassment
> > and other harmful behaviour, and we have enforced existing policies
> > whenever applicable.
> >
> > Recently, an individual associated with our movement published an essay
> > about the events in France on the blogging site Medium and shared that
> > essay with this list. It contained a number of deeply concerning
> > allegations of harassment. Let me first address the most troubling claims
> > of the recent essay—those regarding the Foundation’s handling of
> > allegations against the Wikimedia Foundation’s current Board Chair.
> >
> > In May of 2017 the Wikimedia Foundation was informed, in a letter and for
> > the first time, that the then-Executive Director of Wikimédia France was
> > alleging claims of harassment against the current Board Chair of the
> > Wikimedia Foundation, dating back to his tenure as former Chair of
> > Wikimédia France. In this letter the Executive Director described a
> number
> > of interactions with the Foundation’s Board Chair when he was Chair of
> > Wikimédia France, and went on to accuse him of using his position as
> > Foundation Board Chair to to turn the Wikimedia Foundation’s sentiment
> > 

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

[Rémi Mathis]

Katherine,

I told you a month ago "Maybe you should reply as a responsible human being
and not as a trained crisis communication people". This is truer everyday.

What did you write this email yesterday, and not one,two, three months ago?
Because I left Wikimedia France, because a Fields Medallist left, because
the president of Picasso Museum left, and because journalists began to talk
about the harassment and the violence of some members of the community.
Because the fact that Nathalie Martin had filed a complaint against
Christophe Henner begins to spread not only amongst the community but also
outside.
Because the articles made people aware of the problem and that they are
victims too, and new testimonies are being sent to journalists.
Because you met Christophe Henner in person the day before.

Because you are doing your job to protect your boss and make as little
noise as possible. But when I donate to Wikimedia, when I edit Wikipedia,
that's not what I want from you. I want a safe community.

I wrote to you, Christophe and your team more than ten times between July
and today. I even met your Legal Conselor and Christophe Henner to talk
about the harassment. I never got an email back from you. Not a single word
to a private message I sent. You only answered once on Twitter, because it
was a public conversation.

Now, I'm for you "an individual", you never only *say my name*.
At the same time, I receive a letter from Henner's lawyer trying to make me
remove my post.
Still keeping people quiet instead of accepting and therefore tackling the
problems.

I spent nine years working for the movement as a benevolent member. I have
been chair for 3 years, I worked 9-12pm for the movement for years, I was
threatened by the French Intelligence Service. And thanks to this
dedication, I made a lot of friends ; I met a lot of extraordinay people ;
we contracted with the Bibliothèque nationale, Versailles Palace,
Ministries, etc. We made a huge and very good job.

Now, do you really think I'm leaving with no reason? Do you really think
I'm a liar or frivolous? Do you think I'm being manipulated by an evil
witch we had to get rid of - as some say to journalists and some add (with
neutrality of course) to the Wikipedia article about me?

Denouncing the violence, I'm losing 30 of my closest friends, stopping one
of my favouriste activities and canceling 9 years of my life.

Sending an email like this one, "managing" instead of "caring", you only do
the job you're getting paid for.
But, maybe you also realise that you are shatterring lives of
"individuals"... who have no names. But since we don't even have names,
since there is no violence or harassment problem to deal with, I'm sure you
will never have any problem to look at yourself in a mirror.

Even Hollywood is facing the violence and harassment problem. Wikimedia
still doesn't.
I'm sad. But now I'm only sad for you and one of the greatest human
projects of the time, you are currently making vile and foul.
As for me, it's over.

X, individual [used to be] associated with our movement




On 19 October 2017 at 23:19, Katherine Maher  wrote:

> Everyone,
>
> The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our
> community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or
> ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take all
> harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the
> appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My goal here
> today is to provide more information about the actions of the Wikimedia
> Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in which
> our movement finds itself.
>
> As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the French
> Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies, and the
> Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia
> France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a number of
> the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French
> Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the French
> community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and concerned
> Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by
> community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past months the
> Foundation has received formal and informal complaints alleging harassment
> and other harmful behaviour, and we have enforced existing policies
> whenever applicable.
>
> Recently, an individual associated with our movement published an essay
> about the events in France on the blogging site Medium and shared that
> essay with this list. It contained a number of deeply concerning
> allegations of harassment. Let me first address the most troubling claims
> of the recent essay—those regarding the Foundation’s handling of
> allegations against the Wikimedia Foundation’s current Board Chair.
>
> In May 

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

[Dan Rosenthal]

I think the broader point being that for any legal or criminal complaints,
the appropriate venue is the court system, not the Wikimedia-L mailing
list.

Dan Rosenthal

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:45 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> > Legal threats are surely the universal language of bad faith
>
> That assumes that legal threats are never legitimate. If there are
> criminal allegations of which the Foundation has not yet been made
> aware, they should be emailed to the appropriate officials and role
> accounts. Abuse of process is the bad faith subset.
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Gabriel Thullen 
> wrote:
> > Thank you Katherine for your long and thoughtful message on this
> difficult
> > subject. I feel that the Foundation took the necessary steps to ensure
> that
> > all parties concerned were treated fairly. I also tend to trust the
> > Foundation board when they say that there was "no merit to the charges".
> >
> > This appears to be a classic case of "claims and counter claims" which
> the
> > Foundation has settled. Now that the smoke screen has been cleared, we
> now
> > need to address the other issues that are plaguing Wikimedia France.
> >
> > Once again, thank you for setting the record straight in such a calm and
> > measured fashion. I sincerely hope that we will now be able to answer our
> > member's grievances and get to the bottom of this mess, with the
> > Foundation's help, experience and guidance,
> >
> > Best regards
> > Gabriel
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 19, 2017 7:41 PM, "Richard Farmbrough"  >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it very clear that these allegations were the last gasp of an
> >> ancient regime,
> >>
> >>
> >> Legal threats are surely the universal language of bad faith.  And I
> have
> >> complete trust in Pierre-Selim and Caroline.
> >>
> >> Thanks Katherine, for sharing details of what has been happening.
> >>
> >> Sam.
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
___
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

[Gabriel Thullen]

Thank you Katherine for your long and thoughtful message on this difficult
subject. I feel that the Foundation took the necessary steps to ensure that
all parties concerned were treated fairly. I also tend to trust the
Foundation board when they say that there was "no merit to the charges".

This appears to be a classic case of "claims and counter claims" which the
Foundation has settled. Now that the smoke screen has been cleared, we now
need to address the other issues that are plaguing Wikimedia France.

Once again, thank you for setting the record straight in such a calm and
measured fashion. I sincerely hope that we will now be able to answer our
member's grievances and get to the bottom of this mess, with the
Foundation's help, experience and guidance,

Best regards
Gabriel

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> On Oct 19, 2017 7:41 PM, "Richard Farmbrough" 
> wrote:
>
> I think it very clear that these allegations were the last gasp of an
> ancient regime,
>
>
> Legal threats are surely the universal language of bad faith.  And I have
> complete trust in Pierre-Selim and Caroline.
>
> Thanks Katherine, for sharing details of what has been happening.
>
> Sam.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
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

[Samuel Klein]

On Oct 19, 2017 7:41 PM, "Richard Farmbrough" 
wrote:

I think it very clear that these allegations were the last gasp of an
ancient regime,


Legal threats are surely the universal language of bad faith.  And I have
complete trust in Pierre-Selim and Caroline.

Thanks Katherine, for sharing details of what has been happening.

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

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

[Richard Farmbrough]

I think it very clear that these allegations were the last gasp of an
ancient regime, mired as it was in nepotism and other unsavoury practices.

The criminal allegations can be left to the police.  The description of the
steps taken by the WMF in this case seems to be of a very sensible
handlingerie of a difficult situation.

On 20 Oct 2017 12:22 am, "Emeric VALLESPI" 
wrote:

Katherine,

Your answer is particularly shocking. Which right has the Foundation to
feel legitimate in order to describe the situation experienced by Nathalie
Martin or by other people? Only a judge can.
The movement organization does not take precedence over the laws of the
countries.

You rely on a single document (a letter) to judge that there is no moral or
sexual harassment?
What about the criminal complaint? And the medical leaves? And the
testimonies attached to the complaint? These other elements were not taken
into account, why?

The Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation ridiculed himself in the press [0]
when he said that he had discovered yesterday the reproaches that were
addressed to him as well as the complaint. His lawyer even tried to make it
appear that the complaint had never been filed.
Even though this whole situation has been known by the Wikimedia Foundation
for months!

Mockery reaches its top with your so-called measures. In case you do not
know Katherine, in France independent lawyers do not exist. Judges are
independent, not lawyers.
The lawyers you have appointed have been paid by the Foundation. They
*only* interviewed the defendant. In these conditions, how could the
outcome not be favorable to his version?

You did not answer any of my previous questions:

Why did not the Wikimedia Foundation hear Nathalie Martin at her request?
Just to have her version of the facts, it would have been - maybe ... - a
good idea.
Why did the experts who were supposed to conduct an adversarial
investigation not discussed with Nathalie or Marie-Alice? Would not that
have been the least of the things? Why did not they hear the board of
trustees’ member? Why did you refuse to organize, as you (or your
representatives) were offered, a confrontation between
complainant/defendant?
Why fear so much to hear the version of Nathalie?

You have witnessed what Marie-Alice and Nathalie have experienced with
social media as well as on the mailing-list you're hosting. You've done
absolutely nothing to protect them.
You're mentioning complaints that have been filed to the Support and Safety
committee, which has no legal existence in the real world (outside of the
movement). I am talking about real criminal complaints in a police station.
Whether you can compare the two shows your total unconsciousness.

Again, the role of the Wikimedia Foundation is not to determine whether the
current Chair is guilty or innocent. Nor whether the acts are sexual or
moral harassment.
Your role, as an organization, is, to a minimum, to hear the victims and to
ensure their protection. You have undertaken everything to mask this
situation in order to guarantee your tranquility. It is a shame for a
movement that wants to be humanistic.

Regards,
--
Emeric Vallespi

2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher :

> Everyone,
>
> The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our
> community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or
> ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take all
> harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the
> appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My goal
here
> today is to provide more information about the actions of the Wikimedia
> Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in which
> our movement finds itself.
>
> As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the
French
> Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies, and the
> Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia
> France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a number
of
> the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French
> Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the French
> community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and concerned
> Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by
> community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past months the
> Foundation has received formal and informal complaints alleging harassment
> and other harmful behaviour, and we have enforced existing policies
> whenever applicable.
>
> Recently, an individual associated with our movement published an essay
> about the events in France on the blogging site Medium and shared that
> essay with this list. It contained a number of deeply concerning
> allegations of harassment. Let me first address the most troubling claims
> of the recent essay—those regarding the 

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

[Emeric VALLESPI]

Katherine,

Your answer is particularly shocking. Which right has the Foundation to
feel legitimate in order to describe the situation experienced by Nathalie
Martin or by other people? Only a judge can.
The movement organization does not take precedence over the laws of the
countries.

You rely on a single document (a letter) to judge that there is no moral or
sexual harassment?
What about the criminal complaint? And the medical leaves? And the
testimonies attached to the complaint? These other elements were not taken
into account, why?

The Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation ridiculed himself in the press [0]
when he said that he had discovered yesterday the reproaches that were
addressed to him as well as the complaint. His lawyer even tried to make it
appear that the complaint had never been filed.
Even though this whole situation has been known by the Wikimedia Foundation
for months!

Mockery reaches its top with your so-called measures. In case you do not
know Katherine, in France independent lawyers do not exist. Judges are
independent, not lawyers.
The lawyers you have appointed have been paid by the Foundation. They
*only* interviewed the defendant. In these conditions, how could the
outcome not be favorable to his version?

You did not answer any of my previous questions:

Why did not the Wikimedia Foundation hear Nathalie Martin at her request?
Just to have her version of the facts, it would have been - maybe ... - a
good idea.
Why did the experts who were supposed to conduct an adversarial
investigation not discussed with Nathalie or Marie-Alice? Would not that
have been the least of the things? Why did not they hear the board of
trustees’ member? Why did you refuse to organize, as you (or your
representatives) were offered, a confrontation between
complainant/defendant?
Why fear so much to hear the version of Nathalie?

You have witnessed what Marie-Alice and Nathalie have experienced with
social media as well as on the mailing-list you're hosting. You've done
absolutely nothing to protect them.
You're mentioning complaints that have been filed to the Support and Safety
committee, which has no legal existence in the real world (outside of the
movement). I am talking about real criminal complaints in a police station.
Whether you can compare the two shows your total unconsciousness.

Again, the role of the Wikimedia Foundation is not to determine whether the
current Chair is guilty or innocent. Nor whether the acts are sexual or
moral harassment.
Your role, as an organization, is, to a minimum, to hear the victims and to
ensure their protection. You have undertaken everything to mask this
situation in order to guarantee your tranquility. It is a shame for a
movement that wants to be humanistic.

Regards,
--
Emeric Vallespi

2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher :

> Everyone,
>
> The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our
> community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or
> ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take all
> harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the
> appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My goal here
> today is to provide more information about the actions of the Wikimedia
> Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in which
> our movement finds itself.
>
> As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the French
> Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies, and the
> Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia
> France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a number of
> the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French
> Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the French
> community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and concerned
> Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by
> community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past months the
> Foundation has received formal and informal complaints alleging harassment
> and other harmful behaviour, and we have enforced existing policies
> whenever applicable.
>
> Recently, an individual associated with our movement published an essay
> about the events in France on the blogging site Medium and shared that
> essay with this list. It contained a number of deeply concerning
> allegations of harassment. Let me first address the most troubling claims
> of the recent essay—those regarding the Foundation’s handling of
> allegations against the Wikimedia Foundation’s current Board Chair.
>
> In May of 2017 the Wikimedia Foundation was informed, in a letter and for
> the first time, that the then-Executive Director of Wikimédia France was
> alleging claims of harassment against the current Board Chair of the
> Wikimedia Foundation, dating back to his tenure as former Chair of
> Wikimédia France. In this 

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

[Patricio Lorente]

Thanks so much, Katherine, for this detailed report. I really appreciate
this.

   Patricio

El jue., 19 de oct. de 2017 a la(s) 18:20, Katherine Maher <
kma...@wikimedia.org> escribió:

> Everyone,
>
> The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our
> community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or
> ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take all
> harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the
> appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My goal here
> today is to provide more information about the actions of the Wikimedia
> Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in which
> our movement finds itself.
>
> As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the French
> Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies, and the
> Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia
> France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a number of
> the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French
> Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the French
> community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and concerned
> Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by
> community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past months the
> Foundation has received formal and informal complaints alleging harassment
> and other harmful behaviour, and we have enforced existing policies
> whenever applicable.
>
> Recently, an individual associated with our movement published an essay
> about the events in France on the blogging site Medium and shared that
> essay with this list. It contained a number of deeply concerning
> allegations of harassment. Let me first address the most troubling claims
> of the recent essay—those regarding the Foundation’s handling of
> allegations against the Wikimedia Foundation’s current Board Chair.
>
> In May of 2017 the Wikimedia Foundation was informed, in a letter and for
> the first time, that the then-Executive Director of Wikimédia France was
> alleging claims of harassment against the current Board Chair of the
> Wikimedia Foundation, dating back to his tenure as former Chair of
> Wikimédia France. In this letter the Executive Director described a number
> of interactions with the Foundation’s Board Chair when he was Chair of
> Wikimédia France, and went on to accuse him of using his position as
> Foundation Board Chair to to turn the Wikimedia Foundation’s sentiment
> against the French chapter.
>
> Contrary to the assertion in the Medium essay, while the former Wikimédia
> France Executive Director’s letter detailed tense and disagreeable
> interactions between the two individuals, it did not characterize those
> interactions as sexual harassment. Also contrary to the essay’s assertions,
> the Wikimedia Foundation took immediate and appropriate action after
> receiving the complaint.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation, under clear direction from our Board, responded
> promptly:
>
>- We notified the Vice Chair and Board Governance Chair immediately
>after receiving the then-Executive Director’s letter.
>- Under their direction and supervision, we promptly hired expert French
>legal counsel to conduct an investigation on this issue.
>- The Foundation Board Chair was informed of the investigation and
>recused from all relevant discussions. The Board Chair was also recused
>from any discussion regarding Wikimédia France and the French Wikimedia
>community, including any participation in funding decisions.
>- The investigation by the experts found that the French chapter’s
>Executive Director’s detailed statements of facts, in addition to not
> being
>characterized by her as sexual harassment, also did not support a
> finding
>of sexual harassment.
>- Based on the information provided, French counsel also looked at
>whether the allegations supported a finding of “moral” harassment,
>ultimately concluding that they did not.
>- The findings were conveyed to the then-chair of the board of Wikimédia
>France. The chapter leadership was asked on more than one occasion if it
>had any additional evidence or wished to further discuss the
> conclusions.
>No additional information was provided.
>- Under these circumstances, the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation found
>no merit to the charges.
>
>
> *As has been repeatedly stated, the Foundation remains fully committed to
> reviewing and investigating additional information, if presented, of sexual
> or other harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation staff
> or board member. We fully condemn harassment in the Wikimedia movement.*
>
> The essay in Medium also references experiences of a number of former
> Wikimédia France Board members who 

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

[Katherine Maher]

Everyone,

The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our
community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or
ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take all
harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the
appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My goal here
today is to provide more information about the actions of the Wikimedia
Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in which
our movement finds itself.

As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the French
Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies, and the
Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia
France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a number of
the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French
Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the French
community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and concerned
Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by
community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past months the
Foundation has received formal and informal complaints alleging harassment
and other harmful behaviour, and we have enforced existing policies
whenever applicable.

Recently, an individual associated with our movement published an essay
about the events in France on the blogging site Medium and shared that
essay with this list. It contained a number of deeply concerning
allegations of harassment. Let me first address the most troubling claims
of the recent essay—those regarding the Foundation’s handling of
allegations against the Wikimedia Foundation’s current Board Chair.

In May of 2017 the Wikimedia Foundation was informed, in a letter and for
the first time, that the then-Executive Director of Wikimédia France was
alleging claims of harassment against the current Board Chair of the
Wikimedia Foundation, dating back to his tenure as former Chair of
Wikimédia France. In this letter the Executive Director described a number
of interactions with the Foundation’s Board Chair when he was Chair of
Wikimédia France, and went on to accuse him of using his position as
Foundation Board Chair to to turn the Wikimedia Foundation’s sentiment
against the French chapter.

Contrary to the assertion in the Medium essay, while the former Wikimédia
France Executive Director’s letter detailed tense and disagreeable
interactions between the two individuals, it did not characterize those
interactions as sexual harassment. Also contrary to the essay’s assertions,
the Wikimedia Foundation took immediate and appropriate action after
receiving the complaint.

The Wikimedia Foundation, under clear direction from our Board, responded
promptly:

   - We notified the Vice Chair and Board Governance Chair immediately
   after receiving the then-Executive Director’s letter.
   - Under their direction and supervision, we promptly hired expert French
   legal counsel to conduct an investigation on this issue.
   - The Foundation Board Chair was informed of the investigation and
   recused from all relevant discussions. The Board Chair was also recused
   from any discussion regarding Wikimédia France and the French Wikimedia
   community, including any participation in funding decisions.
   - The investigation by the experts found that the French chapter’s
   Executive Director’s detailed statements of facts, in addition to not being
   characterized by her as sexual harassment, also did not support a finding
   of sexual harassment.
   - Based on the information provided, French counsel also looked at
   whether the allegations supported a finding of “moral” harassment,
   ultimately concluding that they did not.
   - The findings were conveyed to the then-chair of the board of Wikimédia
   France. The chapter leadership was asked on more than one occasion if it
   had any additional evidence or wished to further discuss the conclusions.
   No additional information was provided.
   - Under these circumstances, the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation found
   no merit to the charges.


*As has been repeatedly stated, the Foundation remains fully committed to
reviewing and investigating additional information, if presented, of sexual
or other harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation staff
or board member. We fully condemn harassment in the Wikimedia movement.*

The essay in Medium also references experiences of a number of former
Wikimédia France Board members who reportedly left their posts because of
alleged harassment from French Wikimedia community members. In the majority
of these cases, the Wikimedia Foundation has not received complaints and
has no further information about these allegations.

We are aware that some people working at the Foundation for some months
have received comments from a number of community members through informal
channels 

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 

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] The other side of the crisis at WMFR

[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

___
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

[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 his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We
> immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation employed
> independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on the
> information presented, the investigation found no support for the
> allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
> 
> The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation if
> presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the
> allegations to be without merit.
> 
> 
> On behalf of the Board,
> 
> 
> María Sefidari
> 
> El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad"  escribió:
> 
> When I first 

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

[Alessandro Marchetti]

I worked in France some years ago, and I had the feeling that in my experience 
allegations of harassment were more common there than in other countries. At 
least in the tertiary sector.

My idea is that instead of fixing the disfunctionalities of the working 
environment (which in France seemed to be above avarage compared to other 
countries) it is inevitable to add another one on the list. There is usually 
some professional boss at the end of the chain that cut them before it's too 
late.

There was not even a point in blaming a specific person for something at a 
certain point (they always balmed someone, I ma just saying no point to me)...  
it all looked like a continuum of mismanaged issues where evrybody was victim 
and executioner at the same time. I believe that this is what happen in a 
system that shows a relatively scarcity of common sense, combined with an 
inability to admit there is an issue before it grows too much. It's like 
something involuting in its own parody, and sometimes it looks tragic and comic 
at the same time.

Once I made fun with a André Malroux style of the death of the working ethics 
of the "Génération Mitterrand", but they so much did not like that. Of course I 
am aware that I am not the free spirit à la Sartre that knows how to to 
criticize the decadence of the French bourgeoise in the right way.

 

Il Mercoledì 11 Ottobre 2017 23:51, John Erling Blad  ha 
scritto:
 

 For the moment I have virtually zero trust in all involved, including the
wmf board. Reorganize and regain trust!

John Erling Blad

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Natacha Rault  wrote:

> Hi Maria, thank you.
>
> Personnally, and as an engaged feminist in real life, I dont believe one
> word of these allegations.
>
> My support goes to Christophe, and like you wrote, these allegations I
> think are not backed up by evidence as far as I have been informed).
>
> Too many people within the francophone community are being accused -
> causing resentment - of too many things that are simply not true, for me to
> be able to believe in this.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Natacha / Nattes à chat
>
> > Le 11 oct. 2017 à 19:54, María Sefidari  a écrit :
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> > We would like to specifically address the allegations related to
> harassment
> > in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment
> > seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that
> > allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation
> > Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We
> > immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation
> employed
> > independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on
> the
> > information presented, the investigation found no support for the
> > allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board
> > as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation
> if
> > presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the
> > allegations to be without merit.
> >
> >
> > On behalf of the Board,
> >
> >
> > María Sefidari
> >
> > El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad"  escribió:
> >
> > When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions
> to
> > them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly
> > anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users
> > are an invitation to fierce battles.
> >
> > Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role
> > of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF,
> > unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the
> > problems, and move on.
> >
> > No, I do not know any of the people involved.
> >
> > John Erling Blad
> > /jeblad
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis <
> > mariealice.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice
> >> Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
> >>
> >> The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now
> complete
> >> and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and
> >> frustration of these past few months.
> >>
> >> I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had
> more
> >> time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the
> >> French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I
> > had
> >> a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie
> Martin
> >> or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I
> have
> >> I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values.
> >>
> >> Today, I have lost friends or people I thought 

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

[John Erling Blad]

For the moment I have virtually zero trust in all involved, including the
wmf board. Reorganize and regain trust!

John Erling Blad

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Natacha Rault  wrote:

> Hi Maria, thank you.
>
> Personnally, and as an engaged feminist in real life, I dont believe one
> word of these allegations.
>
> My support goes to Christophe, and like you wrote, these allegations I
> think are not backed up by evidence as far as I have been informed).
>
> Too many people within the francophone community are being accused -
> causing resentment - of too many things that are simply not true, for me to
> be able to believe in this.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Natacha / Nattes à chat
>
> > Le 11 oct. 2017 à 19:54, María Sefidari  a écrit :
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> > We would like to specifically address the allegations related to
> harassment
> > in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment
> > seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that
> > allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation
> > Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We
> > immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation
> employed
> > independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on
> the
> > information presented, the investigation found no support for the
> > allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board
> > as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation
> if
> > presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the
> > allegations to be without merit.
> >
> >
> > On behalf of the Board,
> >
> >
> > María Sefidari
> >
> > El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad"  escribió:
> >
> > When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions
> to
> > them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly
> > anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users
> > are an invitation to fierce battles.
> >
> > Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role
> > of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF,
> > unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the
> > problems, and move on.
> >
> > No, I do not know any of the people involved.
> >
> > John Erling Blad
> > /jeblad
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis <
> > mariealice.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice
> >> Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
> >>
> >> The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now
> complete
> >> and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and
> >> frustration of these past few months.
> >>
> >> I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had
> more
> >> time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the
> >> French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I
> > had
> >> a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie
> Martin
> >> or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I
> have
> >> I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values.
> >>
> >> Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I
> >> defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign
> based
> >> on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of all
> >> the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with
> > them
> >> closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been
> >> manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
> > believed
> >> everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF
> sites,
> >> email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised,
> >> questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve been
> >> told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist
> rant
> >> against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a
> >> conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair
> >> Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats to
> >> withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC funding.
> >> People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early
> in
> >> the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call
> >> themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware
> of
> >> the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe
> for
> >> facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is
> >> pretending WMFR 

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

[Natacha Rault]

Hi Maria, thank you. 

Personnally, and as an engaged feminist in real life, I dont believe one word 
of these allegations. 

My support goes to Christophe, and like you wrote, these allegations I think 
are not backed up by evidence as far as I have been informed). 

Too many people within the francophone community are being accused - causing 
resentment - of too many things that are simply not true, for me to be able to 
believe in this.

Kind regards,

Natacha / Nattes à chat

> Le 11 oct. 2017 à 19:54, María Sefidari  a écrit :
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> 
> We would like to specifically address the allegations related to harassment
> in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment
> seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that
> allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We
> immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation employed
> independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on the
> information presented, the investigation found no support for the
> allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
> 
> The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation if
> presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the
> allegations to be without merit.
> 
> 
> On behalf of the Board,
> 
> 
> María Sefidari
> 
> El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad"  escribió:
> 
> When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions to
> them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly
> anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users
> are an invitation to fierce battles.
> 
> Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role
> of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF,
> unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the
> problems, and move on.
> 
> No, I do not know any of the people involved.
> 
> John Erling Blad
> /jeblad
> 
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis <
> mariealice.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice
>> Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
>> 
>> The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now complete
>> and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and
>> frustration of these past few months.
>> 
>> I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had more
>> time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the
>> French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I
> had
>> a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie Martin
>> or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I have
>> I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values.
>> 
>> Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I
>> defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign based
>> on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of all
>> the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with
> them
>> closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been
>> manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
> believed
>> everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF sites,
>> email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised,
>> questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve been
>> told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist rant
>> against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a
>> conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair
>> Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats to
>> withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC funding.
>> People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early in
>> the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call
>> themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware of
>> the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe for
>> facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is
>> pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to
>> intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
>> 
>> Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by prominent
>> members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that case,
>> right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter funds for
>> personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French justice

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

[María Sefidari]

Dear all,


We would like to specifically address the allegations related to harassment
in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment
seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that
allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation
Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We
immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation employed
independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on the
information presented, the investigation found no support for the
allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board
as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.

The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation if
presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the
allegations to be without merit.


On behalf of the Board,


María Sefidari

El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad"  escribió:

When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions to
them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly
anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users
are an invitation to fierce battles.

Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role
of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF,
unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the
problems, and move on.

No, I do not know any of the people involved.

John Erling Blad
/jeblad

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis <
mariealice.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice
> Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
>
> The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now complete
> and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and
> frustration of these past few months.
>
> I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had more
> time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the
> French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I
had
> a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie Martin
> or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I have
> I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values.
>
> Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I
> defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign based
> on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of all
> the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with
them
> closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been
> manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
believed
> everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF sites,
> email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised,
> questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve been
> told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist rant
> against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a
> conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair
> Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats to
> withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC funding.
> People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early in
> the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call
> themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware of
> the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe for
> facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is
> pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to
> intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
>
> Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by prominent
> members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that case,
> right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter funds for
> personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French justice
> system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to gratuitous
> ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and dictating
> our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank you very
> much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses reimbursement“. None
> of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the goal of
> spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider community has
> clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position and the
> Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French media in the
> hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in the
> crisis.
>
> I am also 

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

[John Erling Blad]

When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more opinions to
them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a partly
anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the users
are an invitation to fierce battles.

Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating the role
of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for WMF,
unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the
problems, and move on.

No, I do not know any of the people involved.

John Erling Blad
/jeblad

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis <
mariealice.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice
> Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
>
> The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now complete
> and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and
> frustration of these past few months.
>
> I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had more
> time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the
> French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I had
> a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie Martin
> or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I have
> I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values.
>
> Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I
> defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign based
> on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of all
> the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with them
> closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been
> manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly believed
> everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF sites,
> email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised,
> questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve been
> told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist rant
> against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a
> conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair
> Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats to
> withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC funding.
> People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early in
> the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call
> themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware of
> the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe for
> facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is
> pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to
> intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
>
> Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by prominent
> members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that case,
> right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter funds for
> personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French justice
> system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to gratuitous
> ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and dictating
> our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank you very
> much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses reimbursement“. None
> of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the goal of
> spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider community has
> clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position and the
> Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French media in the
> hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in the
> crisis.
>
> I am also extremely disappointed that no one from this list asked us (the
> Board) what was happening when these allegations were made, with only a
> handful of people suggesting to wait before all the facts were known.
> Instead, you took for granted the very short and extremely biased English
> summaries of the Board’s communications (which were instantly circulated on
> this list without our consent and in violation of our chapter’s bylaws),
> and joined in the chorus of outrage, condemnation and verbal abuse.
>
> But worse to me than all this, I am actually terrified at how easily the
> Wikimedia community can turn on a person, with no regard whatsoever for
> decency or legality, when it has made up its mind about who has no place
> there. I have personally experienced what it means to disagree with this
> angry mob: questioning the dominant opinion or calling out individuals’
> toxic behaviour makes you in turn acceptable collateral damage and a “fair
> game” target for harassment.
>
> Speaking 

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

[Marie-Alice Mathis]

Hello all,

I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am Marie-Alice
Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.

The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now complete
and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion and
frustration of these past few months.

I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally had more
time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through the
French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for years I had
a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED Nathalie Martin
or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now that I have
I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s values.

Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends because I
defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear campaign based
on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause of all
the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked with them
closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been
manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly believed
everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF sites,
email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word scrutinised,
questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying. I’ve been
told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly sexist rant
against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been called a
conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former chair
Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the threats to
withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC funding.
People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board early in
the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now call
themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly aware of
the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against Christophe for
facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is
pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to
intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.

Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by prominent
members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in that case,
right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter funds for
personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French justice
system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to gratuitous
ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and dictating
our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank you very
much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses reimbursement“. None
of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the goal of
spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider community has
clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position and the
Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French media in the
hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in the crisis.

I am also extremely disappointed that no one from this list asked us (the
Board) what was happening when these allegations were made, with only a
handful of people suggesting to wait before all the facts were known.
Instead, you took for granted the very short and extremely biased English
summaries of the Board’s communications (which were instantly circulated on
this list without our consent and in violation of our chapter’s bylaws),
and joined in the chorus of outrage, condemnation and verbal abuse.

But worse to me than all this, I am actually terrified at how easily the
Wikimedia community can turn on a person, with no regard whatsoever for
decency or legality, when it has made up its mind about who has no place
there. I have personally experienced what it means to disagree with this
angry mob: questioning the dominant opinion or calling out individuals’
toxic behaviour makes you in turn acceptable collateral damage and a “fair
game” target for harassment.

Speaking of this, the movement as a whole needs to address the issue of
staff-volunteers relations exemplified by the rapid turnover of executive
staff across chapters. Nathalie stayed at WMFR an almost record breaking 4
years, but at what cost? I’m being extremely serious in adding that this
conversation needs to take place before something irreversible happens as a
result of harmful group behaviour within the community.

Sincerely,
Marie-Alice Mathis // AlienSpoon


PS: for your information about my position regarding the WMF’s role in this
crisis and their recent unilaterally added conditions [
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_expectations_for_Wikimedia_France_-_2017-2018]
for payment of our FDC-attributed grant, I attach my email to Katy Love
from Sept 20.

Katy, (Cc WMFr Board