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