Since the first reports about Vasconcelos from WMPT to AffCom, before the
15 April General Assembly, we were asking AffCom for legal support to deal
with the situation caused by Vasconcelos, as we are all volunteers and,
unlike AffCom, we have no easy access to lawyers - or at least are unable
The Affiliations Committee has no intention whatsoever of changing the
process; rather, we are simply trying to determine whether the conditions
that we originally set out have in fact been met.
It would, perhaps, have been easier for everyone if we could have done this
without having to solicit
I really hope that the reason for de-recognition of any affiliate is not
that “the other side expressed a contrary position”.
We have seen it in Brazil too, as others already started to link the dots.
There where two groups in conflict. Instead of solving the problem, or even
Thank you for acknowledging the existence of this thread and the fact that
AffCom is still making some effort to bring the problem to a resolution. It
doesn't seem like it should be all that challenging, if one disputant is a
single individual and the other is a community of people led by those
As I believe we mentioned the last time this particular topic came up, we
are unlikely to resolve the intricacies of Portuguese nonprofit law by
debating them on a mailing list.
Gonçalo and his colleagues have quite clearly expressed their position:
they believe that the process by which they
I can't tell which part of this situation is the more sad; is it the events
themselves, the total absence of any comment from AffCom, or the very
limited interest evinced by the rest of the folks subscribed to this list?
It seems if we follow the AffCom model described here, we should take WMPT
I think there's a question to think about, about how the movement
handles this kind of situation where there are evidently serious
governance problems affecting an affiliate.
There are some clear-cut situations (e.g. total inactivity) where the
current de-recognition process can simply be
Just a quick message to clarify that the only conflict that ever existed in
Wikimedia Portugal, as far as I know, was with João Vasconcelos himself.
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
escreveu no dia quinta, 11/10/2018 à(s) 15:38:
> The pro forma statement bout what a chapter is is
The pro forma statement bout what a chapter is is valuable, but I think many
of us kinda got the idea that the problem was not the starting point (otherwise
why electing him?) but came later. It's possible that someone else with more
community experience would have never behaved such way, but
Apologies, I probably explained myself poorly. I never said that a chapter
is a representative of the Wikimedia community, rather I was trying to
explain that João’s claimed experience (emphasis on claimed) in management
and conflict resolution was a major factor in him being elected
The best mistake you do is to consider the wikimedia chapter as a
representative of the Wikipedia community while this statement is basically
When you say that Vasconcelos had no Wikipedia editing experience and
continue to support your position using this motivation, you probably have
I'm really sorry to hear about the situation in Wikimedia Portugal. I hope
everything works out for the best soon.
I would really love to hear the side of the AffCom on the matter since,
from what I understand, there are many things unclear and we already
counding a similar situation in
When I read such mails, I think there is something that it's not 100% working
in the workflow of AffCom. If i might say how i feel it, I would say that it is
not perceived like a "catalyst" of good practices, but more like a bottleneck
Maybe more transparency could help. UG and
SJ, maybe I should explain my comments about involvement of legal counsel
in more detail. My understanding of the situation, which is far from
complete and may be wrong, is that AffCom decided to intervene in this
situation (1) before they had undertaken an effort to gather facts "on the
Thank you very much for those words, and for help dispelling the idea that
we are fatally bound to de-recognizement. I do hope we are not, but when
everything is done by the chapter according to what is asked, even ahead of
time and in a overzealous way, and we receive a new message
Gonçalo, Goethe, and all: Thank you for your work, which I appreciate
dearly, and for the public discussion. I can also imagine this was a very
hard letter to write.
Paulo, to your concerns:
> for a Foundation-run committee that apparently wants to kill us at all
Euh... surely not
Some time ago, a Wikimedian friend told me AffCom is like the physician
that comes to help with the cure when an Affiliate is ill. But that's
really what they were in this WMPT case? This is a very bizarre situation,
of which I'm personally having a lot of difficulties finding rational
While I have limited knowledge of the facts in this situation, I am
concerned about the possibility that AffCom is insufficiently investigating
facts before making judgments.
Interventions from Affcom which are undertaken with an insufficient
knowledge of the facts risk doing more harm than good.
I do not know Wikimedia Portugal's situation but I am sympathetic to their
claim of difficulty staying in compliance.
Over the years I have heard many Wikimedia community organizations claim
that staying in compliance with Wikimedia Foundation and Affiliations
Committee requests are difficult. As
As a wikimedia Portugal board member I totally agree with Gonçalo's
statement. Despite what I believe where AffCom best efforts, they clearly
didn't knew how to properly deal with this situation. They took official
positions without hearing us, they've imposed a roadmap that we had to
The original message was rejected due to a filter rule match, but you can
access it here:
I am sending it below without the links. Please access the link above for
the full version.
Sorry in advance for the
Mail list logo