New subject: The other side of the crisis at WMFR

19 Oct 2017

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" &lt;emeric.vallespi(a)gmail.com&gt;
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 &lt;kmaher(a)wikimedia.org&gt;rg>:

...
  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 about alleged intra-community harassment. These included
 complaints and allegations of harassment made against the former Wikimédia
 France Executive Director and then-Board Chair by Wikimédia France staff
 and community members, as well as counter-complaints from former Wikimédia
 France board members against members of the French community. In each
 instance of which we are aware, the individual raising the complaint was
 directed to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Support and Safety team, which is
 trained and equipped to independently investigate and assess these matters,
...
  particularly where members of the larger Wikimedia
community are concerned.
...

 In total, the Foundation received roughly a dozen of these complaints. Each
...
  of these complaints received by the Foundation was
investigated and
 responded to promptly, enforcing the relevant anti-harassment policies
 whenever appropriate. In some cases, and when appropriate, our response
 resulted in content (for example, content that identified Wikimedia
 community members who guarded their anonymity) being removed from public
 websites or the Foundation contacting users who posted inappropriate
 material. In others, we found that while certain comments at times crossed
 the lines of civility, the actions did not meet the threshold of sanction
 under our policies or constitute intentional or sustained patterns of
 harassment.

 As a cumulative result of these complaints, the Wikimedia Foundation has
 recommended to Wikimédia France that they take immediate steps to implement
...
  a friendly space policy. At the chapter’s exceptional
September general
 assembly, the motion to develop and implement a friendly space policy
 passed with overwhelming support, with 98% of the membership voting in
 favor.[3] The Wikimedia Foundation has offered Wikimédia France our
 assistance with this policy’s composition and implementation.

 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.

 Situations such as the recent events in France provide us with an
 opportunity to learn from the past in order to do better in the future. We
 have seen this time and again in our communities, as organizations
 (including the Wikimedia Foundation) have emerged from governance and other
...
  challenges stronger, with deepened commitments to
openness, collaboration,
 and humility.

 Today is another such opportunity.

 Katherine

 [1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/

 [2]
 http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2017/09/11/vers-une-
 sortie-de-crise-a-wikimedia-france_5184101_4408996.html

 http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-nos-vies-
 connectees/20170718.OBS2248/exclusions-menaces-budget-
 recale-c-est-la-crise-chez-wikimedia-france.html

 [3]
 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/
 WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf/page1-2550px-WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf.jpg

 On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Caroline Becker &lt;carobecker54(a)gmail.com&gt;
 wrote:

  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 &lt;emeric.vallespi(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:
 >
 > > 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 &lt;kewlshrink(a)gmail.com&gt; 
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" &lt;jeblad(a)gmail.com&gt;
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.gariel(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 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 and Rémi)
 >>
 >> In the WMF "Grant expectations" document sent to the Board of WMFr,
 you
 > >> mention as a condition for APG funds payment that I do not resign 
from
 > > my
 > > >> position on the Board until the governance review is complete, and
 > that
 > > > any
 > > >> Board member planning to resign must report and justify it to WMF.
 > > >>
 > > >> You also mention that you retain the right to cease funding WMFr if
 > you
 > > >> consider that legal threats are being used inappropriately to
stifle
...
   > civil
 > >> and appropriate participation in the chapter. Moreover, you 
condition
 > > >> payment to being informed if the chapter leadership feels that
legal
...
    > action
 >> is appropriate to take against current or former board members or  staff.
  >>
 >> Let me be clear: these conditions are outrageous and unacceptable.
 >>
 >> First of all, my legitimacy as a Board member of WMFr does not come  from
 > >> any commitment to WMF but from being democratically elected by 
French
  > >> chapter members. WMF has no say in
who stays or not on the Board,  and
  > >> trying to intervene on such
governance issues is, again, putting  both
 > > >> organisations at risk of being legally recognised as co-employers.
 > > >>
 > > >> Second, as a (volunteer) Board member I have been subjected to
 > > harassment,
 > > >> sexist abuse, and unjustified allegations of misconduct by
community
...
    >> members, that have impacted my health and
mental well being to the  point
 > >> where I was no longer able to do my (paid) job in cancer patient 
care
  > and
 > >> my GP put me on medical leave. A large volume of this abuse took 
place
 > > on
 > > >> WMF property (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro
<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro>
...

<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro>

<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro>

<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro>
 > <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro>
 >> <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro>
 >> <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro> and the
 >> WMF-hosted,
 >> publicly archived mailing lists wikimedia-l and wikimediafr).
 >> You personally and on behalf of WMF encouraged French community  members
 > to
 > >> challenge chapter leadership citing governance issues, without a 
word
 > > >> mentioning the violence suffered by the Board and executive staff
at
...
   the
 > >> hands of some French members during this crisis. Worse, you 
presented
  > the
 > >> Board's email condemning the harassment as inaccurate and 
problematic,
  > >> which made the community feel all
the more legitimate in their  harmful
 > > >> attacks.
 > > >> When I reported the abuse in person to WMF employees during the
site
...
   > visit
 > >> you personally empathised with my distress at the time, and thanked 
me
  > for
 > >> being honest about how your email to the wikimediafr list had made 
our
   >>
already precarious situation untenable. And then you did nothing.
 >> My husband Rémi, who witnessed first hand the effects of the  harassment
 > on
 > >> my health, called on you to release the site visit report so the
 > > misconduct
 > >> allegations would stop. You didn't, until 3 days before our General
 > >> Assembly (where the allegations were repeated), on the same day you
 > asked
 > >> that I stay on as a Board member. Even your choice of words in the
 > "Grant
 > >> expectations" document is telling: "egregious incivility" is
not  what
  we
 > >> are talking about here. We are talking about unacceptable and 
illegal
 > > >> defamation and harassment with serious real life consequences.
 > > >> Rémi also called on the wikimedia-l list to stop the unfounded
 > > > allegations,
 > > >> and was attacked in turn because of "his conflict of interest as
the
...
  > > >> husband of a Board member". He
also reported the abuse to the WMF
 > > >> governance committee, to the Suport and Safety team and mentioned
it
...
   to
 > >> Christophe Henner and Katherine Maher on Twitter, to no avail. To 
this
  > day
 > >> we haven't received any support or acknowledgement whatsoever. All
 the
  > >> while the sexist abuse continues,
and French editor MrButler was
 > moderated
 > >> on the wikimediafr maling list for his continued personal attacks
 > against
 > >> me. This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Board's email to the
 > members
 > >> was calling out, yet you continue to deliberately ignore it and 
refuse
   to
 >> do anything about it.
 >>
 >> Finally, your asking to be informed of any legal action against  chapter
 > >> members or staff is yet another example of the WMF taking sides 
while
 > > >> posing as a neutral arbitrator. Calling someone out on their toxic
 > > >> behaviour or actually filing a complaint are no legal threats or
 > > >> intimidation, but by claiming they are you are trying to silence
 > victims
 > > > by
 > > >> denying them their basic rights to legal protection. At least two
 > > >> complaints have been filed against community members and more may
be
...
   > >>
coming, including on my behalf. You will not be informed because it  is
  > not
 > >> for WMF to decide whether they are justified or frivolous.
 > >>
 > >> For all these reasons I am deeply shocked and hurt by your payment
 > >> conditions and will not abide by the terms of your grant 
expectations.
  > > With
 > >> most of WMFr funding hanging in the balance your unilaterally 
revised
 > > >> conditions amount to blackmail but I will not stay in harm's way
at
 > the
 > > >> request of the organisation who has failed me in every aspect when
I
...
   > came
 > >> in good faith to work for the community. I will resign when I see 
fit
 > to
 > > >> protect my health, and continue to speak honestly and publicly
about
...
   > your
 > >> actions and empty words of safety and inclusivity.
 > >>
 > >> Sincerely,
 > >> Marie-Alice Mathis, vice chair of WMFr
 > >> _______________________________________________
 > >> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
 > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ 
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
  ,
 > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= 
unsubscribe>
  > >
_______________________________________________
 > > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
 > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/  mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  > >
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
 > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/  mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
 _______________________________________________
 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
  _______________________________________________
 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

 --
 Katherine Maher
 Executive Director

 *We moved! **Our new address:*

 Wikimedia Foundation
 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
 San Francisco, CA 94104

 +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
 +1 (415) 712 4873
 kmaher(a)wikimedia.org
 https://annual.wikimedia.org
 _______________________________________________
 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
 _______________________________________________
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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