I dropped off Wikimedia a couple years ago in part because parts of the projects were becoming intolerably hateful and antisemitic. Taking a look at the mailing lists for the first time in a while, I see that things have somehow continued to worsen.
A Board candidate turns out to support an terrorist organization dedicated to exterminating all Jews, posts social media posts promoting antisemitic tropes, 10/7 rape denial, and phrases like "acts of oppression, aggression, massacres, and genocide that surpassed even the Jews" (later trying to defend the statement on Meta by saying "In Arabic, the expression “the Jews” is used to refer to the invading colonizers, and not to the Jews as a religious or ethnic group." (!)), and all that anyone on the Board can say about the disqualification (without a ban or even sanction!) is that the candidacy might "pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation"? And as far as I can see, there has been zero public community/affiliate approval for even the minimal action of disqualification, and significant push for reversing it, and also action taken against the Trustee for suggesting that the WMF might not want to be associated with such things. Tragic. -- Yair Rand On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 4:10 AM Camelia Boban <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all. > Some personal reflections on the candidate removal procedure. > > Regarding the question of perceived neutrality, I wonder whether the > principle applied in this case would have been interpreted in the same way > under inverse circumstances. For example, if a candidate had been the > subject of criticism by Al Jazeera for their political positions, would the > removal have been considered with the same urgency? No intention to create > divisions, I'm only interested in ensuring that our standards are applied > consistently, regardless of the candidate's personal positions on a > sensitive topic. > > Another thing concerns the influence of media/external sources, which > doesn't seem to have been taken into consideration in this discussion. The > most concerning thing to me is that the opinions of individual members - > which led to the unanimity of votes - were formed based more on external > and partisan influences (or personal interpretations) than the Wikimedia > activity and behavior of the candidates. I can understand that living in > today's times, certain pressures make themselves felt and that we are > Wikimedians even outside of projects, in everyday life. But that external > factors can influence decisions that should remain faithful to the values > and policies of the Wikimedia community is the least desirable thing at > this moment. > > > Camelia > > -- > *Camelia Boban (she/her)* > > *| Java EE Developer |* > > [email protected] > M. +39 3383385545 > WikiDonne Chair & Founder | WMF Gender & Climate Change Certified > Organizer | > NW Europe Grants Committee | WikiWomen* Task Force > > *Wikipedia <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban> **| > **WikiDonne > Project <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne> *| *WikiDonne > UG <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne>* | *WikiDonne APS > <https://wikidonne.org/>* > WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMDC - WMBE - WCS-UG > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 2:26 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear James, >> >> I don't think the Fram ban has anything to do with this, TBH. I >> understand that the board is currently under pressure with the two letters >> sent by the Congress and that some people experience fear to stand for the >> values of inclusivity the movement professed in our strategic orientation. >> The fact remains that a woman has experienced a smear campaign for >> expressing concerns about Palestine that were badly translated from Arabic >> and then used against her. By choosing to refuse her as a candidate and >> make her responsible for views expressed when she was not even a candidate, >> the board takes a position that can be qualified as non-neutral. People >> either from Palestine or Israel should not be stopped from becoming >> candidates. >> >> Wikipedia is not a democracy either, and many people have been harassed >> and continue to be without being able to get justice. As for democracy, the >> wish for democracy goes two ways: some people representing gender gap >> projects have long been pointing out the lack of respect for >> underrepresented communities, and it's not like we are heading towards an >> improvement now. The community is not transparent either: pseudos are not >> transparent, and nobody in our movement is criticizing this. So democracy >> and transparency are arguments that need to be examined in context. >> >> The foundation is ... a foundation and is not a democracy either (and >> this would not change anywhere else in the world). It has nevertheless been >> improving, IMO. The balance between the power of communities and the power >> of the foundation seems to me to achieve a certain balance of power, which >> can be called an imperfect dystopian status, certainly not a democracy. >> >> I don't think we should be opposing "the community" to "the foundation" >> here. There are so many communities in our movement, that there is no such >> thing as "the community". There are many different opinions, and the >> positive thing is for them to be able to express themselves within the >> boundaries of respect. >> >> I understand (even if I don't quite agree) how the board could take these >> decisions, but in my opinion this is more a blow to projects wishing for >> more inclusivity than to transparency and democracy. It sends an ambiguous >> message: you shall not express views that are overtly "woke", so to speak, >> or you can be left alone to deal with smear campaigns as we wish to protect >> our image. I don't think it is an encouraging view to pursue. >> >> I can see why the board would fear for their image and want more discreet >> candidates, but I think strong, experienced candidates are just what we >> strategically need now to overcome hurdles, candidates like Ravan and Lane. >> >> To finish, I will quote a famous Francophone Haitian writer, Marie >> Vieux-Chauvet: " Fear is a vice that takes root once it is cultivated. It >> takes time to recover from it ". Now is the moment to stand for free >> knowledge, to express our concern and respect for each other, as history of >> the past shows that progressive movements have always been brought down by >> internal divisions, orchestrated mostly by smear campaigns..... >> >> With WikiLove to the board, to the communities, and to you, James. >> >> Nattes à chat >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/75P4SSMNKEXUL37WEKMRWC4B2TFI3WF2/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/LPFUT7CXUHVTATPZUET2TLBNXNV4WH2X/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/TWWRRKH2SYRTNEIRUD6HUCXWD7UWWWRW/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
