I'm going to go against the grain a little and say I don't think it was a problem that Victoria shared why she voted the way that she did, even if the content of the message itself was concerning. Rationales like that rightly cause distrust because people wonder what else is kept hidden in the name of "private information" that is more of a shield protecting the WMF than the actual right thing to do. I was worried the "lesson learned" here was that the board needs to keep an even tighter rein on trustee's communications when I think that's part of the problem with the way things currently are. I would've appreciated other board members saying "there are other reasons we disqualified these candidates" or "I did not vote the way I did because of Victoria's rationales". That wouldn't have really been exposing anything but it might've given people some peace of mind that maybe there was an actual good reason for why these candidates were disqualified.
Speaking of that, it's really odd that Lane would be encouraged to run in a future election if he somehow failed the vetting process. I'm also concerned with how these checks are conducted in the first place. When one of the board members spoke about how the process was typical for what takes place for the boards of other organizations at WCNA, I became concerned about what exactly these checks were for. There's a huge difference between someone having a history of fraud vs talking to the media sometimes. I don't think what's "normal" for other organizations is necessarily aligned with our values as a movement. On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 10:54 AM Rotana Nawwaf Al Hasanat < [email protected]> wrote: > It's clear that neutrality, freedom of expression, and responsibility in > positions of trust are all interconnected and sometimes in tension, > especially in a global movement like ours, with its diversity of cultures, > histories, and lived experiences. > > But, if I were to come now, send an email saying, "X should be more > careful about what he/she posting in SM. I can’t support him/her, this will > hurt the WF reputation” (and this person is not writing about or mentioning > WF) and then just leave, just leave … and let others expect what happened, > damaging her/his reputation within the movement just because of my personal > opinion about what she/he is posting in SM… do I have the right to do that? > No. > > Anyway, Victoria apologized, and this is a respectable step. > A final comment from my side, We all have political differences, all of us > without exception, and we all support political or religious parties or > orientations outside of WF, especially since each person is from a > different country. WF should take this into consideration. > > Thanks, > RH > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 4:42 PM William Chan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The damage has been done. Both internally and externally. Honesty >> sometimes hurts, in both ways. >> >> Neutrality is not damaged when you present your own opinion, but is >> damaged when actively suppressing other views. >> >> People are perceived as equal until they do something. Doing something >> here also means non-reaction of events after being requested to react to. >> That's why there is such a lot of dismay on the lack of communications from >> the initial announcement of all the changes. >> >> Thoughts on neutrality: >> >> Neutrality did not end on equal mentioning on both sides but instead >> should be equal description of both sides. >> >> Another interesting note is that it is damaged not in the eyes of you but >> in the eyes of the affected. This happens both ways, for speech you like >> and *don't* like. When the perceived idea of neutrality is damaged, it >> will take much more effort to repair. >> >> Thoughts on freedom of speech: >> >> As discussed, people should be careful on what they speak as it affects >> the reputation of own self and others. People in position (and power) >> should be inherently careful on what they say, and thoughtful if it affects >> others. As best practice, this should also be the case forpeople who are >> actively trying to run for positions of power. As an example, people expect >> a higher standard when one is running for a seat in parliament (or with >> official power) versus being just a free person. >> >> In same principle, the expected minimum behavioural level is different >> you to be when you are just an editor versus holding positions of power >> (such as admin, ombundsman, and other positions of power). >> >> Furthermore, the social (and political) fabric in where the board is at >> (i.e the United States) does not fully aligns with the social fabric of the >> editor base (for obvious reasons). As a result, there's a legal possibility >> that words considered as freedom of expression may affect one's own ability >> to carry out their board member abilities (i.e. travelling to the United >> States and attend board meetings). However, does that constitute >> self-censorship? Does restricting speech to protect the movement in the >> *executive >> level* outweigh the damage it can do when speech from the executive >> level is *unrestricted *on contentious issues? >> >> You are not only representing editors from those who selected you but >> also those who *did not*. >> >> As a final note, if hurting others means ending freedom of expression, >> then I do not think speech justifying what happened on Oct 7 should be >> considered freedom of expression, as well. >> Neither do whatever happened before that that led to it. Two wrongs >> doesn't constitute a right. >> >> Regards, >> William >> >> >> On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 20:20, Rotana Nawwaf Al Hasanat < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Adding to the previous emails: >>> >>> speaking as a Wikimedian or board member, it doesn't matter; all people >>> must respect each other here. Victoria (as a Wikimedian) also didn’t have >>> the right to say what she shared, because nothing Ravan said or shared in >>> her SM hurts the Wikimedia Foundation's reputation, especially supporting >>> Palestine and rejecting genocide. Again, our freedom of expression ends >>> when it becomes harmful to others. >>> >>> In any case, her apology has been received. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> RH >>> >>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 2:13 PM Gnangarra <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I dont know how much more open and honest Victoria could have been in >>>> the recent email started by Hannah where she explicitly opens with; >>>> >>>> I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available >>>>> information. >>>> >>>> >>>> I get some people took her response as being in some way official, >>>> there is a problem distinguishing where the volunteer in us ends and the >>>> position starts, its even more blurred when someone is discussing something >>>> which overlaps both roles. >>>> >>>> LC raises the point; >>>> >>>>> Specifically "Be honest and accurate in conveying professional >>>>> conclusions, opinions, and research findings, and in acknowledging the >>>>> potential limitations." >>>> >>>> >>>> I get that Victoria was possibly (probably) in possession of more >>>> information due to her role than what was public. Stepping down for a >>>> period of time is a valid outcome, as is offering a public apology for any >>>> misunderstanding that was caused. >>>> >>>> Calling for Victoria to resign isn't reflective of her original clear >>>> intent to speak as an individual in the belief that speaking as a volunteer >>>> could be disconnected from being on the Board as a volunteer. It's healthy >>>> for community representatives on the Board of Trustees to learn from this >>>> that they can't reliably separate their voice as a volunteer from that as a >>>> board member on areas where the two collide. >>>> >>>> For the wider community this lesson should also flow on through to >>>> other Committee & Community positions when you take on a role you take a >>>> specific responsibility that binds you to those committees, while >>>> forfeiting the right to be heard solely as a volunteer. Your right to be >>>> heard is in the closed forums, to offer any explanation >>>> >>>> We learn we move on, and we grow as a community together, yet with it >>>> we have also irreparably suffered a loss. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 18:02, L C <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Victoria Doronina, resign immediately. >>>>> >>>>> You have interfered with an open election resulting in a mass boycott >>>>> with multiple open letters explaining the case. You blatantly violated the >>>>> WMF Board of trustees code of conduct. If you refuse to resign the board >>>>> should stop circling the wagons and creating tangents by lobbying >>>>> "personal" comments in volunteer forums and sack her for blatant >>>>> misconduct. >>>>> >>>>> Specifically "Be honest and accurate in conveying professional >>>>> conclusions, opinions, and research findings, and in acknowledging the >>>>> potential limitations." and "The Foundation recognizes as bullying >>>>> behavior >>>>> that may be characterized as offensive, intimidating, malicious or >>>>> insulting, or an abuse or misuse of power through means intended to >>>>> undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient." >>>>> >>>>> WMF Board of trustees Code of Conduct: >>>>> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Code_of_Conduct_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees >>>>> >>>>> Fact check, did Victoria lie? >>>>> ==================== >>>>> Yes, the defamatory allegations against both Lane and Ravan were >>>>> demonstrated as false the same day they were published. She must have been >>>>> fully aware they were lies before posting them. These public responses >>>>> were >>>>> available to the WMF Board at the start of the WMF board election and have >>>>> not been addressed. >>>>> 1. Breakdown of the defamatory allegations against Lane: >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/EBRZA4SXW2DVQTY3MOVIT57OZ2OFFWUE/ >>>>> 2. Breakdown of the defamatory allegations against Ravan: >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2025/Formal_Complaint_on_Deliberate_Defamation_an_Exposing_Private_Information_by_a_Board_of_Trustees_Member >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 07:34, Victoria Doronina < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Wikimedians >>>>>> >>>>>> I have been thinking more about my message to this mailing list and >>>>>> the reactions it caused, and I want to offer my apologies. People who >>>>>> know >>>>>> me know that I always speak my mind and I am a direct person. I think >>>>>> this >>>>>> is one of the reasons people voted for me on the Board. >>>>>> >>>>>> When we had the Movement Charter vote last year and people were >>>>>> questioning the Board’s decision, I wrote a message to explain my >>>>>> personal >>>>>> reasons for my vote, especially since this was one of the campaign issues >>>>>> in my election to the Board. I felt it was important to keep my promise. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I did that again here. But my mistake was that this board decision >>>>>> is about people, not about a document, and people don’t deserve to be >>>>>> drawn >>>>>> attention to in ways that can cause harm. I also understand that the >>>>>> Board’s code of conduct requires Trustees to coordinate their public >>>>>> communications on collective decisions, which I did not do this time. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am frustrated by what I see as inaccurate information about some >>>>>> aspects of the election but understand that sometimes not all forms of >>>>>> official communications can satisfy everyone. >>>>>> >>>>>> First and foremost, I would like to apologise to Ravan and Lane for >>>>>> any harm I may have caused them as people. In hindsight, it sounds naive >>>>>> that I did not intend it. I will tell them more personally but a public >>>>>> apology is essential. I would also like to apologise to any Wikimedian >>>>>> who >>>>>> experienced any negative emotions as a result of my letter. And I >>>>>> apologise >>>>>> to the Board and staff as well for breaking the agreed commnucation >>>>>> strategy. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have decided to immediately suspend myself from most of the board >>>>>> activities until the end of the year, in coordination with Board >>>>>> officers. >>>>>> I will continue my Wikimedia activities such as editing, uploading photos >>>>>> etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for reading this letter. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Kind regards, Victoria >>>>>> Victoria Doronina >>>>>> <https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/dr-victoria-doronina/> >>>>>> (she/her) >>>>>> Trustee >>>>>> Sister Projects Taskforce Lead >>>>>> >>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share >>>>>> in the sum of all knowledge. Please help us make it a reality." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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/HZGTGJZGFD2UGWOHJWRTNFX742DZAKUM/ >>>>>> 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/T4EWPJ7CF7MUZBUIL777KKLP5U3YS7JR/ >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Boodarwun >>>> Gnangarra >>>> 'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardon nlangan Nyungar >>>> koortabodjar' >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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/IQMDWGTA7I5N6OAMGLKGQJRWV5ZDQNDZ/ >>>> 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/GNBY3B5X4LSA7K4R5LNSLD5ZII5UHC2R/ >>> 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/LT5XH3CFRCYWUZC25SFD2WD7XIYVKJOZ/ >> 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/M5WID73RBN7I54ZFB5W57NBROYE3FWN5/ > 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/ZPLSB2JQXK7NW7DESBTETXSQSCVDS4TS/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
