Talk:2025 WMF Board reform petition

Time to create Wikimedia USA

One of the problems of our current structure is that the WMF is in many ways a US organisation. One step away from that would be to split the WMF and create a USA chapter with a US based board to handle and disburse money raised in the USA. The Red Cross and Crescent, Rotary, Greenpeace and Mensa are all organisations that have gone through a similar path to create an international organisation. In some of those organisations the international organisation is the only organisation for people in many countries which don't yet have national chapters; But our problem of having one organisation to cover both our largest national community of volunteers, and our largest source of funds, is I think unusual, our evolution as an organisation has stalled. Or rather a decision was made over a decade ago to default to centralised fundraising rather than a more federal approach. WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

well of course we spent many years thinking about how to implement the WMF's 2018 strategy, and one of the main recommendations was to create another movement-wide body that would not operate the tech and wouldn't need to be based in the USA, and which could play a role in reducing our US politics ris, but the present WMF board vetoed that... Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not suggesting another movement wide body. I'm suggesting one US wide body and one global one. Perhaps it would make sense for the US Chapter to have some of the tech, maybe one major datacentre, with whichever datacentre that relocates out of the US becoming a global responsibility, or a responsibility of the new host nation's chapter. Think of it as the WMF having a Wikimedia US offshoot, and the WMF becoming more global, maybe based in the US, maybe elsewhere. Iceland has cheap electricity and a good climate for cooling datacentres, it might be a very sensible location for the international aspects of the WMF. I haven't been back to Keflavik for over thirty years but it used to function as a mid Atlantic hub, medium haul from both northwest Europe and the east coast of north America where most Canadians and quite a few US citizens live. WereSpielChequers (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree, the foundation's confusion of US politics w/ the politics of the Wikimedia Foundation is deeply tied up in the lack of a US organization that can "take the heat" for the political disfunction in the US. That disfunction also forces the Foundation to hire US based executives, instead of having accountable local community-selected paid staff. In other countries, a local chapter would be in a position to testify before congress, for example, in a way that would be truly separate from the larger platform-level of the Wikimedia Foundation (to steward the platform and brand that support 25 years of work by a community of volunteers), and could even disagree if the US editing community were not aligned with the larger Foundation, Sadads (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding english wikipedia, where I am most active, I think the WMF for the most part has done a great job of fostering an environment where editors can write an encyclopedia without worrying about funding, technology, personal legal trouble, or a host of other issues. That is not to say that editors cannot get involved with those issues if they do not want to, but the freedom to write without having to think about these things is an immense value that we not easily disrupt. I think what has occurred here is a tactical error on the part of the BoT which comes in the context of multiple other disagreements that en wiki has had with WMF in the past year or two where I have actually been paying attention. Some of these disagreements like SLAPP and AI are simply hard issues that I do not think will be resolved more easily with more internal struggle than is already necessary.

I think the pair of questions to reflect on is does this tactical error by the BoT highlight a strategic misalignment between how the BoT runs elections and their charitable mission. In my opinion, yes. However, I have not yet seen evidence that there tools within the system like a push for bylaws modification have been advocated for to the extent that we can conclude within system methods will not be effective at mitigating this misalignment.

If some group of editors wants to take on independent fundraising, I applaud that and I am likely to support it both theoretically and financially; however, I urge those considering this route to attempt to achieve their goals within the existing institution first because I think it will be easier. Czarking0 (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Editor stories

After discussing it with User:Clovermoss, I am starting this section to provide a space for editors to share their own stories. We both believe that each story is unique, and that each person's input matters. Everyone – be they an experienced Wikimedian or a newcomer just joining the movement – is invited to add their own reflections here, to show the WMF the diversity of the Wikimedia movement. You matter, we matter. Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

By Chaotic Enby

Dear Wikimedia community,

I am also an active Wikipedian, and have been for a few years now. I have contributed over 40,000 edits, mostly to the English Wikipedia, on which I built key projects like the WikiProject AI Cleanup and the Unblock Wizard.

Over my last few years of interactions with the rest of the Wikimedia community, it has been clear to me that Wikimedians do not have equal voices in decision-making. As Clover pointed above, there is a communication gap between the Wikimedia Foundation and regular editors – especially editors not as familiar with the intricacies of how the WMF is organized. It isn't always clear when and where to give feedback – or if feedback is even sought, and will be listened to.

When I find myself as one of the rare editors giving input on a project, I wonder whether most editors might just not know that this is a possibility to begin with. In a way, this perpetuates a systemic bias, where the opinions of more experienced editors are more likely to be communicated. But would the opinion of other editors be any less important than ours?

The Foundation has attempted to remedy to this, through initiatives such as the Product and Technology Advisory Council. However, it did not represent the Wikimedia community as a whole. It only consisted of a handful of volunteers hand-picked by the WMF, with no broader community input on its structure or jurisdiction. It was a first step towards reform, and I do have hope in what they might be able to achieve. But it is still one in which a committee speak in the name of a community.

In its very spirit, Wikipedia was meant to be the encyclopedia that anyone could edit. No qualifications needed, no recognition required. Everyone had an equal voice, and consensus was meant to be built together. As the Wikimedia Foundation grew from this project – and later outgrew it –, its governance should reflect the ideals on which it was built, now the values of the movement it represents. I am hopeful that reforming the Board, and the Foundation's structure as a whole, will be a greater step towards achieving a more democratic form of governance.

07:33, 9 October 2025

By [username]

...

Commentary on the commentary? Oh what a recursive mess!

Pinging everyone who already signed and might be interested in this! @Czarking0 @Soni @روتانا @DarkGreenAndSunny @Yngvadottir @Femke @Ltbdl @VIGNERON @Kudpung @WereSpielChequers @Chinmayee Mishra @Buidhe @Kline @HouseBlaster @Wbm1058 @OwenBlacker Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I really enjoyed Seraphimblade's commentary here [1]. It's one of the best ways of explaining why the disconnect between the WMF and the community can inevitably lead to problems that I've seen in awhile. I also agree that objective disqualifying criteria is more equitable and fair. Clovermoss (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Question

We, the undersigned, are concerned that the way the Board currently operates does not truly reflect our values as a movement. Other than the decision to exclude Lane from the election, what are some examples of this? I consistently see editors complaining about the WMF, but every example I've seen seems reasonable or explainable if you dig below the surface level of the WMF's actions. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

On the tactical level, it is not just the specific decision with Lane, but the conditions that lead to it. They do not make clear what the criteria for exclusion are prior to the election and allow a separate body to make the determination of whom those criteria apply to. If Lane had been excluded for specific reasons by a separate body prior to the shortlisting or as part of the shortlisting process I likely would not have an issue.

Also, I am not satisfied with the financial transparency of the WMF. I try to read their financial summaries each year and they are not detailed and understandable enough for my liking.

On the theoretical level, the thing I like about en wiki is it feel like a highly functioning anarchic movement. The WMF does not feel to me like it abides by the same principles of community that represent my view of "the internet we were promised". The BoT having more say de jure in who is on the BoT than I do is probably the capstone of what I mean in this sense.

On the level of pure feelings, when I see other editors they seem like kindred souls. Even the ones I disagree with seem to be people like myself who like to think deeply, like the internet, and are highly self educated. Looking at the WMF board, especially the appointed seats, I see persons with connections and opportunities that I will never have. They do not seem like the best of our kindred spirits entrusted to lead the community. They seem like powerful people with connections that previous board members thought would further empower the WMF. Maybe on some level that is necessary, but it doesn't feel good. Czarking0 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair points RE process in this case. I don't know enough about the WMF's financial disclosures to weigh in there. RE your latter points on community and structure, for better or worse, the WMF is not a membership organization and the board has a fidicuary duty. Generally, board members get appointed not just for governance, but for fundraising and their connections. I think that's beneficial to the community overall, but recognize there are arguments for a fully elected board and transforming WMF into a membership organization. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the WMF is not a membership organization and the board has a fidicuary duty, that's where these conversations ultimately seem to end once I've convinced people that there's substantial problems with the way things are. If the only way to change things is to be a membership organization, maybe we should be a membership organization. It's one possible solution out of many but it's not like we have to accept that things are the way they are eternally and never change. Many great organizations over time have failed because they refused to change. Clovermoss (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

We can look at the last major petition to the WMF, which was at en:Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. It received 1,374 signatures, but the WMF went in the opposite direction of the community. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: A lot of the time it's by making decisions that would be obviously problematic if you asked people active in the community about them. I first started feeling the disconnect myself when I realized how poorly mobile editing was geared towards editors. See w:User:Clovermoss/Mobile editing for more information about that. I often felt like I was explaining things that were easy enough for anyone to say (Cullen328 had been saying some of this stuff for years in his essay but no one listened) and I was treated like my observations were magically revelatory. I appreciated some of these concerns being addressed but sometimes it was just really frustrating to have to explain these needs in the first place. A lot of people often feel like they're talking to a brick wall when they try to explain the needs of their communities in other contexts. I also think that if there was stronger community representation within the WMF, ideas like mw:Wikimedia Apps/Team/iOS/Fundraising Experiment in the iOS App wouldn't be proposed in the first place. Even some of my experiences at wikimania speak to this phenomenon. For example, there was a keynote where a professor said stuff like "If you're a scholar and you do not ask your students to write Wikipedia articles as a form of submitting your essay for a grade, you're a loser. You're a massive loser", "If you do this, Wikipedia editors will oftentimes check to see if it's plagiarized or not, they will make comments, they will edit it for you", and "If from a class of thirty people... five articles remain, it's zero versus five". To my recollection, I was the only person who pushed back against this in the Q&A section. You can watch that here.

We are not a limitless resource. We are incredibly passionate and thorough people who pour our hearts into what we do, for free, and attitudes like this only excaberate what people have learned in other interactions... that our voices don't matter and we don't know what we're talking about. My understanding is that some of this has gotten better over time. We've went from people never seeking any feedback at all to sometimes being heard but in a roulette kind of way. A lot of the time people have no idea who to go to in the WMF if they have a problem, either. It's hard for people to feel engaged. When I hear someone proudly talk about how they're donating to the Wikimedia Foundation because they want to support what we do, there's a part of my stomach that sinks every time. Because a lot of us don't feel supported and that we're being exploited, essentially.

The aforementioned fundraising idea was also something I found out about at wikimania. I felt incredibly betrayed by it, actually, because I had just been recognized for my efforts in mobile editing feedback and yet something like this was being touted as the next great step forward. I also spent a lot of time trying to prevent other disasters. I spent an hour and a half talking with a WMF employee who wanted to make talk pages like more real-time platforms like Discord. I emphasized repeatedly that what most people from the community want is addressing more long-term technical debt than bold, brand new features that would cause chaos. And that's just my personal experiences. I'm sure others can speak to more. I've heard that the problem is even worse outside of enwiki because we get a lot of the attention. I'm trying to figure out how to increase the visibility of this petition because it matters to people globally and they deserve to have a say. Clovermoss (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah from what I've seen I agree that the technical folks seem out of touch with the community's interests/concerns, but it seems like they're working on that post-AI feature fiasco. This also seems to be a problem with staffing/process, not the board. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see how we're being exploited. We all volunteer here and can choose to stop. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

And I'm not sure why the comments of a keynote should be attributed to the foundation. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. "The Foundation" in English-speaking discussions (and "The Chapter" in German and a few other languages where there is a single supporting chapter) become the figureheads that people rail against as out of touch and failing their communities, rather than identifying a specific group or project or policy to improve. On its face, this is not an overly helpful reflex, as the central orgs are rarely in a position to directly affect the object of the complaint. But recognizing this as a common feedback mechanism, central orgs can and should dedicate more resources to ombudspeople who channel such input to appropriate groups. (including speakers, event organizers, research partners, &c) –SJ talk  21:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought that petition was ill-advised and that editors were underinformed and misunderstood the legal implications of failing to comply with a court order. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, agreed that in parts it was ill-advised. @Thebiguglyalien: this doesn't seem like a good example despite the extensive participation by editors. The outcome doesn't seem 'opposite' given the ongoing discussion about the case and decisions made in it; it did not do everything requested in the open letter but tried to explain why where there was a remaining difference, and also explained why there were legal implications that would not be elaborated in extreme detail on-wiki. In particular I don't think the WMF had a meaningful decision to make in which it 'chose' to 'oppose' community interests or wishes; it was very much trying to act in a way that protected current and future community members. –SJ talk  21:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I attributed that perspective for a reason. I think it's a salient example of a broader attitude that frustrates me. It speaks to the gulf in priorities that happens. I don't have much hope that the post-AI fiasco will change much by itself. There's been plenty of scandals in the past and fundamentally huge mistakes keep getting made. That will continue to happen forever as long as there's that massive disconnect. Sometimes people even leave the projects because of this. We have some degree of survivorship bias here. As for exploitation, obviously no one is forcing people to edit, but I do think the current dynamic is somewhat exploitative inherently for both donors and volunteers. Donors think they're supporting us and large portions of our communities do not feel supported. That money comes in because of the work we do. Maybe exploitative isn't the perfect word to use here, but at the very least people are being taken advantage of. Even 16-year old me thought that the fundraising could be more transparent [2].

I'm not one of those "I hate the WMF no matter what" people. It's pretty amazing that our movement is a place where I can even be someone who matters. I have honestly tried to make things better and I still haven't lost hope. A lot of people become jaded over time. But that feeling of hopelessness doesn't come out of nowhere. It comes from people repeatedly trying to change things and failing. I have a voice now and I feel a sense of responsibility to use it to amplify the voices of people who haven't felt heard in a long time. As for why this is relevant, this letter is addressed to both the WMF and the Board of Trustees. But it's not like the Board of Trustees is an island onto itself. In an ideal world, they're representing the interests and supporting the communities as much as possible. I don't think this disconnect is a result of active malice most of the time. The people I've met seem like good people who care, and that goes for WMF employees too. But caring isn't enough if you don't listen and don't know what you're missing. Clovermoss (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

"What are some examples of this?"

The shortlisting process shouldn't require jumping through invisible fire hoops. --NaBUru38 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Another is from Doc James, who wrote this "loss of democracy" section and is himself a former board member. [3] Clovermoss (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

And another is this timeline of how the board acted from 2014-2016 and the resulting consequences. [4] Clovermoss (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Question -- unanimity

I am considering signing this petition (esp. over the perennial issues with communication, rather than the removal of candidates in itself, because the latter does seem to be reasonable, at some level). The petition mentions that the board favors lessening dissent (Which leads into another concern – that candidates be strongly unified). Can someone please link specific mails or comments where the foundation articulated that demand? Janhrach (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Janrach: It's a reference to Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/October 2025 update, which states that Now more than ever, the Foundation needs a strongly unified board committed to collective decision-making responsibilities that can help steer the organisation and our movement through difficult global headwinds, right after disqualifying two candidates. People have expressed concerns about this at Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/October 2025 update#Value of an election where candidates are vetted for unanimity. One trustee offered their perspective, which raised additional concerns, that can be read at Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/October 2025 update#Message from Victoria Doronina on Wikimedia-l. Clovermoss (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

A brief synopsis can be found here, but a full picture is hard to piece together:

Objections_to_the_2025_WMF_Board_election_removals#Communication_about_the_change

Some volunteer time to build the larger narrative may be welcome. - Fuzheado (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Further comment

I've signed the petition, and I want to comment further on why I did. As far as I can tell from the various comments from Board members, the concern was that Lane might want to publicly post internal information that the Board treats as confidential. Removing a good-faith candidate from the ballot on this basis is deeply objectionable. The proper solution would have been to require anyone elected (or anyone expected to be on the final ballot) to sign an agreement not to release private information. We have similar things that Oversighters and Checkusers sign, and that would not be a problem. But it sounds to me like Lane was kicked off without ever having been asked about that, just on the basis of innocuous things he has said about the importance of reporting, and Board members assuming the worst after reading that. It also sounds to me like Ravan was eliminated for having posted comments on social media about Israel/Palestine that (I infer) would not go over well with the Trump administration. I think it goes against every core principle of the Wikimedia movement to expect Board members to "speak with one voice", as opposed to coming to consensus after hearing differing views. And it's a very autocratic-seeming election process, when the number of candidates gets pruned down to the number of open four candidates for two seats. The WMF Board has lost my confidence, and it's hanging by a thread in terms of losing the confidence of the editing community. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Taking a further step back

Aside from all process concerns I have: If we want our leadership to be part of public conversations - heck, if we want *potential* future leaders to be part of critical debate inside and outside of Wikimedia, it is a very dangerous precedent to set that candidates are removed from consideration for posts in the past. This is a dangerous risk in regular politics as well as Wikimedia.

I don't know yet what the right solution would be. If these candidates would pose insurmountable legal risks (I haven't seen the full information available to the board, and I'm sure it was accompanied by a legal analysis of sorts) - we could push back as a community. However, I also realize that the board has a tremendous responsibility. Their duty is to ensure the continued existence of the Wikimedia Foundation forever. And I don't envy their responsibility right now, given the developing political, legal (and financial!) landscape in the United States.

I really appreciate Clovermoss' broader approach to think about solutions. What I do think we really have to ask ourselves in the coming year, is whether our current structure with a WMF board that has both the legal responsibility for everything, and in some way is the only strategy-setting body that we have as a movement, is perhaps placing a bit too much responsibility to place on a single body. I recall that one of the main outcomes of the movement charter process was to address this - and while the specifics of that solution were maybe not perfect, this drama does reinforce to me that the principal idea of moving away to a more balanced system may be more important than ever. Effeietsanders (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

We don't want to break what's working, but...

The WMF has supported an amazing ecosystem of freely available verifiable knowledge for the world through providing a foundation for the communities that produce the various language wikipedias, commons, wikidata, etc. I worry that a significant structural change could damage that ecosystem as its importance to the world becomes ever greater. That said, the dependence on a US-based organization and infrastructure is worrisome under the current political situation. Looking at how for example the International Red Cross is organized, they also have a headquarters country (Switzerland) - perhaps choosing a historically neutral country with strong technical capabilities like Switzerland would be a better place for an internationally relocated WMF. Or can the governance somehow be devolved to something truly international, through perhaps a congress of the regional and country-level Wikimedia organizations? Wikidata has done well largely supported by Wikimedia Deutschland, for example, rather than being entirely US-based, although I understand the service infrastructure is still located in the US. But if a change like this would result in splintering of the movement and editors I think that would be a terrible thing. So whatever is proposed should be done with care and foresight concerning side-effects and long-term trajectory. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Examples of when people felt supported

Negative incidents stand out quite strongly in people's minds, especially when they tend to outweigh the positive ones. I think there's quite a lot to learn from people's frustrations with the way things are because many of us have felt like we've had to keep such things to ourselves to avoid burning bridges and that's not healthy. But I think it's also useful to explain the times when people have felt supported, or if they quite frankly haven't experienced anything like that (because it's really sad if they have none at all). But there have been times I've witnessed good initiatives and I think it's good to learn from what people do find supportive of their communities because the WMF Board can learn from that. So for me, I appreciated that the reception to most of my mobile feedback was positive, even if a lot of it wasn't implemented (sometimes the reasons for this varied; I remember being the most frustrated by the implication that it didn't really matter if the reply function didn't work in Wikipedia space per [5]). I think the w:Wikipedia:Resource support pilot is a wonderful initiative. I appreciate that I'm occasionally sought out for feedback regarding certain features. Voorts, I'm presuming you've had some positive interactions with the WMF in the past given your favourable impressions above? Clovermoss (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic Wikiversity discussion

Hi, i don't know if this is the right place to ask for help, but i tried several places and got no reponse. I have a problem with a curator removing and replacing "my" articles. If anyone could help, i would be very gratefull. Thanks! Harold Foppele (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC) P.S. articles at WikiversityHarold Foppele (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC) @Harold Foppele: This question is a bit off-topic for this page. I don't really know much about Wikiversity as a project (although I do try to learn about the sister projects where I can). I think it would be better for ask someone on that site. In general, I find it useful to try to talk with people I'm in conflict with on the English Wikipedia, although sometimes that doesn't always work out. Have you tried explaining to them how you feel and that you don't understand why they're doing what they're doing? They might be able to provide an explanation you haven't thought of. Clovermoss (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC) @Clovermossthanks for respondent. I tried that, but no response :(Harold Foppele (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC) @Harold Foppele: It seems like you asked a few days ago at the Colloquium where people are encouraged to ask questions about how the project works, too. I've done some digging trying to understand Wikiveristy's processes and the only other place I can think to point you in the direction of is this. I'll ask around to see if anyone I know can do something more to help you. Clovermoss (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC) I am very very gratefull!! ThanksHarold Foppele (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Harold_Foppele Maybe this explains the problemHarold Foppele (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I've had no interactions with the WMF and their actions have not affected my editing at all. I think the average editor (who is not involved in backend discussions) would likely say the same (or ask you what the WMF is). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I do appreciate their work in protecting editor privacy and fighting for freedom of information. While I believe the system could use reform, that doesn't mean the WMF doesn't do plenty of good work as well. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

RIP Alex T. Roshuk

en:User:Alex756, founder of the Association of Members' Advocates

Wikimedia Foundation membership controversy Wbm1058 (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Translation

@AmandaNP, CptViraj, and DreamRimmer: could someone please mark this for translation? Thanks, —Matrix (_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk?) 13:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Matrix: Can you add the translation syntax and ping me? – DreamRimmer ■ 13:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer: done, didn't mark one of the links to w:Nonprofit_organization#Formation_and_structure so individual translators can translate it —Matrix (_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk?) 13:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Since people will edit this to add signatures, every edit would make the translation outdated. I suggest asking the OP if they are fine with moving the translatable content to a subpage, so we can mark it for translation and transclude it on the main page, which should do the job. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

cc @Clovermoss – DreamRimmer ■ 14:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. I was actually going to figure out how to communicate this to non-English readers later today, so this works out perfectly. Clovermoss (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. Users can translate this from 2025 WMF Board reform petition/translatable. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Be careful of what we ask for

1. A membership organisation forgoes anonymity. If one wishes for anonymous members voting anonymously, forget about it. Legally it is not possible. The organisation has to keep a ledger of the membership which include personally identifiable information, like legal name, mailing address, etc, and only registered members will be able to vote. Additionally, registered members can demand to inspect the ledger, and depending on how the ledger is being maintained, private information can be leaked. Also, authorities at where the organisation is registered in can inspect the ledger as part of its supervisory role. What would prevent a situation where other arms of the law overreaches through these authorities to target and chase after certain editors?
2. Certain international editors may be excluded like Iranians. Why? Turn that question to the US government. As long as US maintains sanctions on countries or some individuals
3. Membership organisations can be taken over or captured by a vocal minority if there are no proper safeguards, and it had been done before. While this is not a United States non-profit, here's an example: en:Association_of_Women_for_Action_and_Research#Attempted_takeover_by_conservative_Christian_group, with the course reverted after a EGM being called, and possibly some backroom state pressure on the group as well.

Robertsky (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

There's a reason I said a consultation and not that we go through with it nessecarily. It's important for the community to be able to make an informed choice if things get that far (hence why I said what I said about being aware of the resulting legal ramifications, as most of us are not lawyers). I'm aware of the privacy implications, but I also think that people being able to be able to have some power rather than none is a personal choice that people should be able to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of. As for maintaining the integrity of the ledger, I'm sure there's a possible solution for that. We haven't had massive leaks from the WMF, why would changing the membership model suddenly make that more of a risk? Can't do anything about the law overreaching other than hoping the government won't do that wherever you're based, but again that's going to be a concern no matter what type of organization we are.

Why would certain editors from certain countries be excluded? That'd definitely be an important factor and I'd prefer you elaborate on it with verifiable information if you can. As for #3, I think the risk of a self-perpetuating board is way more vulnerable to a take over than a membership organization with reasonable requirements (off the top of my head, people in good standing with any wmf project with over 1,000 edits and who registered their account at least a year ago?).

But again, becoming a membership organization is just one possible solution. Having real community representation that isn't just "suggestions" that can be ignored whenever would be a pretty good start. For example, having some amount of say over how bylaws are written and enforced, less narrowed down candidates for an actual election rather than a selection, etc. Clovermoss (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Clovermoss, thanks for replying. I am highlighting some of "complicated dynamics" of being a membership organisation. The primary concern is the anonymity of the participants.

1. On the membership ledger, as long as it is documented, there is always a risk of information leak. Once again, the access is not restricted to just WMF staff or vetted volunteers, but also accessible by other members and authorities. Our public profiles make us easily to be found by others, but not so for other editors who have yet to have their editing history connected to real life identities or being in the public eye for good reasons.
2. On making choices, I don't see how this would make a difference. In reality, there would still be ballot criteria to fulfil and might be ironclad to the point that not many will be able to fulfil (while in most parts of the world, criteria to be on the ballot paper is pretty lax, Singapore presidency has a requirement of being a CEO of a company with S$ 500 million capital (SGD1 = CAD1.08) if the person comes from a private sector).
3. United States has an active sanction against anyone from Iran [6], which actively discourages US citizens from "approv[ing], financ[ing], facilitat[ing], or guarantee[ing] any transaction by a foreign person, including one that meets the definition of a covered person, as defined above, where the transaction by that foreign person would be prohibited" [7] There are other sanctions active against countries or classes of individuals or individuals being found here [8]. While there is no case of a board member or member being restricted that I can think of, en:En+ Group was sanctioned until the Russian ownership and control was diminished.

Robertsky (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

For me it is obvious that the new membership organization can not be based in the USA. Many international organizations are based in the Switzerland and I think this is also the place for the international Wikimedia association. The WMF could still exist in the current form as the largest chapter. GPSLeo (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Possible if you are considering just the anonymity aspect, but there are different laws to consider such as hate speech laws, defamation laws, freedom of speech provisions, etc, which may end up seeing articles requiring either some adjustments or outright removal, if and when other parties decides to take the CH organisation (not the current CH chapter, for clarification) to court. It will probably require some very specific legalese crafting to ensure that the CH org does not affect the operations in US if the hosting and technical aspects are not being moved. Robertsky (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Also another example of a membership takeover: en:People's_Action_Party#Great_Split_of_1961, where what was termed as a communist-left takeover of the ruling party of Singapore, before the communist leadership split from the party. Robertsky (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Public identification is a requirement for voting, whether it's voting for public office (you generally must register to vote in advance of the election) or for the board of a nonprofit organization. The WMF currently has only a maximum of 16 "members", who are members of its board of trustees. If you want to only vote anonymously, your vote will only ever be advisory in nature, not binding. Anonymous voting is problematic in that it opens the door for potential "sock puppet voting", for which technical efforts must be made in order to mitigate the risk of such votes actually succeeding in swaying the results. Editors generally must identify themselves to attend Wikimedia-sponsored conferences in person, I'm not sure they'll let anyone in the door who refuses to identify themselves. We can still have initial advisory "elections" which allow anonymous participation, followed by a binding vote of the full membership which may take the results of the advisory election into consideration before making their binding votes, but with a full membership that numbers in the hundreds or thousands, rather than just 16. Joining the Foundation could be as simple as "anyone can edit, anyone can join" no-cost registration similar to registering to vote in public elections, photo-ID not required, or require payment of a nominal membership fee, or making a minimum number of edits ("contributions") to Wikimedia sites.

AWARE was taken by surprise when a group of women from a conservative church, objecting to the organisation's sexuality education, took over the Executive Committee. After several months control was wrested back through an Extraordinary General Meeting that saw a record number of 3,000 people signing up to be AWARE members. Not unlike a record-number of formerly apathetic citizens registering to vote and then throwing an unpopular incumbent out of office. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that thorough examination, Wbm1058. Whatever method we go with, I'd want to make sure we stay true to our values as a movement and give editors who'd rather remain anonymous a voice. But I do agree that this doesn't make the membership model by itself flawed, even if it's definitely something that's important to consider. As for sanctions, does this mean we can't have board members from certain countries as things stand at this very moment? I'd imagine this would be much more of a pressing issue with who is actually members of the board itself than an issue for rather ordinary members of a much larger organization.

But as I stated before, there's ways to at least try to attempt to make things better without having to take this step that I think could very well be worth trying. I know Doc James has some good ideas on this front that he might want to elaborate on here. The main thing I'm trying to get across with this petition is that the community matters and the status quo really isn't acceptable. Something needs to change. Clovermoss (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It can be an issue for the larger membership if the membership requires payment as the sanctions are also transactions based. Robertsky (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't want our membership model to require payment. The WMF has enough money without us having to pay dues, which is the main reason you'd want to do something like that, unless it was somehow required by law. You also didn't answer my question about whether our current model means that people from certain countries aren't allowed to sit on the board. Was it an oversight or do you not know? Clovermoss (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The current model may also preclude people from certain countries as well. Robertsky (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• Another illustrative example: Mountain Equipment Co-op, a membership organization dedicated to the selling and manufacture of high quality products for sportspeople and those who spent a lot of time in the outdoors. The organization's Board was progressively and slowly, election by election, more oriented toward mimicking for-profit companies in the same field. When some poor financial decisions and over-expansion (driven by that same Board) combined by the retail downturn of the pandemic resulted in very serious financial troubles, the Board arranged for its purchase by a private equity firm. This decision was made without consultation of the membership, which numbered 5.7 million. Attempts to stop the sale were completely unsuccessful.

  This is instructive in two different ways: The first is that there are valid concerns about a Board becoming increasingly restrictive in its eligibility requirements, a concern that we are seeing right now in the situation that has led to this petition. The second is that even in an organization with millions of members, there is no guarantee of consultation on major material changes. More than a decade ago, there was an example in a major affiliate where a Board was elected by the membership, made a major material change to the organization, and then several of those newly elected board members resigned; they had accomplished their goal. It was a very expensive lesson in democracy for that affiliate, both in financial cost and in reputation; amongst other things, it resulted in their having to re-write their bylaws so that their board was less likely to have such a take-over in the future. These are real examples of how broad membership does not guarantee a good outcome for the members or the organization. But it does also highlight how a board, even within a membership organization, can become too restrictive or not restrictive enough in its candidate eligibility.

  While I'm not going to support or oppose the decisions the current WMF Board of Trustees made with respect to the candidates in this specific election, I would ask them to really think about whether this is the most effective way to manage their major concerns about specific candidates. I know their decision was made in the full awareness that a non-negligible portion of the broad Wikimedia community would be unsupportive of that decision, and I would ask the community to also consider what means they would find more acceptable to remove a candidate from the ballot, keeping in mind that every Board member's behaviour is scrutinized at a level far beyond what any typical Wikimedian will experience. This is important to talk about now, because a major change such as expanding the ranks of membership in the Wikimedia Foundation would take a few years at minimum, and we will have several more changes to the Board even if a decision is made to make such an organizational change. Risker (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  Well, if by some miracle all of that happens, I'm certain the WMF would want to make sure we have an actual concrete plan for the future. I would, too. Ideally they'd help support us in making it. I care a lot about the projects and wouldn't want to accidentally be the cause of their downfall. Good governance requires thinking about possible consequences and planning for as much as you can. But Wikimedians are also some of the most thoughtful people I know when they're empowered to make decisions with all the relevant information. I think a consultation where everything is spelled out would be good to have, even if it's just something to point to in the future when someone wants to know "hey, why are/aren't we a membership organization?". It lets people feel more at ease when they feel like they're not just shoved aside and have an actual say.

  As for what the community would find acceptable reasons to remove someone from a ballot, I think Seraphimblade's ideas of more objective criteria (linked in one of my earlier comments) to be a really good start. What we as a community find unacceptable probably doesn't match what the board does. The narrowed down candidates also makes it hard for a true election. It seems like there's 8 rounds of approval before someone even gets to be on the ballot? And that's before we get into certain interpretations about unity and financial transparency. I'm still shocked that Lane's comments were taken in the worst light possible and that Victoria thought he'd disclose non-public financial information without consent. If I'm remembering this right, one of Doc James' ideas for accounting for this was having something like an elections committee with more power and that is elected by the community sign non-disclosure agreements instead of the board itself having the power to unilaterally do such things. It might be hard to have it actually happen in practice given that a board would probably always technically have that legal authority, but maybe if the community needs to be a part of the bylaw-making decision it could happen? But then again, recent actions seem to conflict with already existing bylaws so I don't know. But I definitely trust ArbCom more than I trust the board when they tell me that something can't be disclosed, so maybe the idea has some merit. We'd just need to be careful that the non-disclosure part doesn't prevent people from speaking up about their experiences if it isn't working (e.g. that their authority isn't a charade). Some non-enwiki perspectives on that would be amazing. It's good to see that my petition is gaining traction on a more global basis as I want everyone to feel heard. Clovermoss (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if a membership organization is the best idea, but I'd at least like some reform for the existing process. The Movement Charter would have been a good step in that direction, but the board vetoed it. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Board is losing support among the editors. At the very least, I'd like a commitment from the Board to be more transparent regarding decisions like this, and to not remove opposition candidates from the ballot simply for being opposition candidates. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the worst things about a "membership organization" is 1) who defines the membership; and 2) liability. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Support in spirit, can't sign

@Clovermoss, I salute your effort here and I wish you the best. I have struggled with whether to sign, but personally I can't at this time. I feel that signing represents a certain commitment to following through with a discussion, should any members of the board take you up on your request. At the time I simply can't make good on a commitment like that. I think you have the right idea, and I wish you success. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Update

People who've commented on this peition may be interested in the update given at Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/October 2025 update#Additional perspectives on current and future board selection processes. Since it seems people won't nessecarily be proactive about contacting people, I'll do some mass pings so people are aware this exists. Czarking0, Soni, Rotana, DarkGreenandSunny, Chaotic Enby, Yngvadottir, Femke, ltbdl, Vigneron, Kudpung, WereSpielChequers, Chinmayee Mishra, Buidhe, Kline, HouseBlaster, Wbm1058, OwenBlacker, Matthewvetter, ValerioBozz, Fathoms Below, Fortuna imperatrix mundi, CommunityNotesContributor, Perfect4th, ComplexRational, Nemoralis, JuxtaposedJacob, Abade, Launchballer, A09, Tazerdadog, Ocaasi, Masssly, DraconicDark, Zblace, Tryptofish, Cremastra, SHB2000, Seraphimblade, ViridianPenguin, Thebiguglyalien, Polimerek, OhanaUnited, Pppery, Bawolff, Cryptic, Nigel Ish, Rutebega, and ToBeFree. There's a limit of 50 pings at once so the rest will come momentarily. Clovermoss (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The other 50: Kowal2701, Abzeronow, Rexogamer, Cullen328, TE(æ)A,ea, Saroj, Ikan Kekek, Bunnypranav, XtexChooser, Steven Sun, ~2025-28418-41, Salvio giuliano, Mary Joanna, Phil Bridger, Alien333, Jan Kameníček, LightNightLights, TrameOscure, Vanamonde93, Hogü-456, Marcus Cyron, NaBUru38, Slowking4, Plutus, EggRoll97, Kusma, IllCom, Gigi Lamera, Matrix, Ternera, Doc James, Zezen, femboy clen, Ferien, RoySmith, Doug Weller, Jim.henderson, Consigned, Bishonen, Polomo, Justiyaya, Sapphaline, Mgjertson, Gaurav, ClaudineChionh, ~delta, Zache, Camelia boban, Choucas0, and Lee Vilenski. Clovermoss (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

And the last few people who signed since I last looked this morning: Nighfidelity, Jayen466, Ethn23, QuicoleJR, and Yunkal. Clovermoss (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Membership and elections

I think that robertsky and Risker raised some valid concerns above. So, here are some ideas that could possibly ameliorate those, in a membership-based organization. With the caveat that I'm not a lawyer, so these are just ideas, certainly not legal advice or a guarantee that they would be viable.

As to people having to publicly identify in order to vote, and editors from certain countries not being able to at all, maybe take a page from the Commons Picture of the Year process. The election could be split into two steps. The first, done by approval voting, would allow all editors, anonymous and from anywhere, subject to tenure/account age criteria of course, to cast an "approval" for any candidate who throws their hat into the ring. Then the top X candidates in that round go on to the final election, for the "membership" voting stage, which could be done via ranked choice voting just like today. That way, editors who prefer to remain anonymous or are in embargoed countries still get some say into the process. (And it's not difficult or expensive to get something like a UPS store mailing address, either, so editors wouldn't need to put up something like their home address. And I bet most editors aren't half as anonymous as they think they are; anyone who cared to dig a little could probably figure out who I am.)

As to the "hostile takeover" scenario, what about some type of organizational charter, similar to a national constitution, that is binding on the Board and can only be changed or amended with a direct majority vote of members? That way, the Board would be able to handle day-to-day business, but couldn't, say, decide to up and sell the whole project off to Alphabet or something, because the charter would forbid that and the members would not agree to changing it to permit that.

Just some ideas, and I'm sure they would require a great deal of tweaking at the very minimum, but I think those potential problems are very likely surmountable if they're considered going into it. Seraphimblade (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

some type of organizational charter, similar to a national constitution – by-laws? Janhrach (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

WCNA

Hey everyone. I tried my best to follow through with representing the concerns of the community through this petition in WCNA's Board of Trustee conversation today. Things did not go well. I'll write something more thorough about my concerns and how Maryana Iskander treated me later. Clovermoss (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to ViridianPenguin as they were sitting close to me and might have some thoughts about what happened. Clovermoss (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! Here's my write-up: During today's Day 2 of WikiConference North America 2025, Wikimedia Foundation CEO Maryana Iskander led a discussion on the WMF with Board members Mayree Clark and Kathy Collins. This choice of panelists did themselves no favors, as our primary concern is that a ballot whose candidates are hand-picked by the Board makes community seats redundant with appointed seats, yet we did not have any community board members to explain why they joined the unanimous vote to drop Lane and Ravan. As Theklan put it here, folks are especially concerned that Chair-Elect Lorenzo Losa was elected by the community on promises that seem directly contradicted by wikt:eleventh-hour unexplained removals of two highly qualified candidates. Instead of getting a response from our representatives, we only heard from those who naturally support Board appointments.

Mayree Clark, a recent appointee, began her remarks by noting her prior service on the board of Deutsche Bank, and she praised its similar structure of evenly dividing its members between typical businesspeople and union-elected representatives. When I asked why that recognized strength of Deutsche Bank should not encourage us to have freer community elections for WMF Board seats, Iskander claimed that early in her tenure, she found community-nominated Board members to be at odds with appointed ones. I fail to see why this history should mean the WMF Board should effectively appoint all the seats, rather than have the community elect a greater share.

Most upsettingly, when Hannah disputed Iskander's view, she retorted that one could not question her decision-making until they served as CEO of such a large organization. Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown, but with great power comes great responsibility. When paid ~$500K USD per year, Iskander has a responsibility to explain the Board's decision-making beyond its finality, rather than blithely dismiss the concerns of someone so recently recognized for their value to the community.

I ended my questions by noting that Deutsche Bank workers achieved their board representation with the threat of strikes. I highlighted that if the WMF Board only offers platitudes in the coming weeks without serious consideration of reform, then Wikimedia projects will be left to exercise our similar threat of blackouts. Let us hope that this round of criticism yields rooms for reconstruction. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

"Iskander claimed that early in her tenure, she found community-nominated Board members to be at odds with appointed ones" is not how I recall the interaction. Marayana had explained that there were effectively two boards (not that they were at odds necessarily but operating in almost parallel) and how hard that made her work as a CEO. Clovermoss started her reply with "I don't think that's a bad thing" before reiterating the point that it's important that there is a diversity of viewpoints and perspective on the board. That's when Maryana began her reply with "When you're a CEO...". From my point of view, Marayana acted as a human in that moment reacting to someone seemingly dismissing her lived experience instead of acting as a leader who has both formal power (she is the CEO) and informal power (as someone who is older than Clover). Part of being in a position like Maryana's - and it's why I so respect her because she normally navigates this well - is not making these kinds of mistakes (even when considering all the other factors around Maryana at the moment). Barkeep49 (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I also attended the session and my recollection aligns entirely with Barkeep49's. And while I agree that Maryana's approach here was less thoughtful than I know her usually to be, I do want to make explicit what is implied here – that one day before this session, Maryana's session was interrupted by a gunman at this very conference. I would not have held it together under these circumstances, nor could I name anyone I know well who would have. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t) 14:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware that tensions are high, but I think it's important to remember that I was there when the guy with a gun entered the room too (as well as many others, probably including you) and it's not just something that affected her personally. But of course I care about the human component and said as much the day it happened. I wanted her to know that she doesn't have to feel like she has to keep it together if she needs some time to process it all.

I also think it's important to recognize that just because I'm young, it doesn't mean I'm clueless. Unlike the countless CEOs with short tenure, I've been actively involved in the movement for over seven years. To be completely dismissed like that is unwarranted regardless of the circumstances. I don't act that way and I'm not the one being paid $500,000 a year. I've never even made a tenth of that annually in my life and yet somehow I make people feel listened to in a way that people whose job it is to do that cannot. Clovermoss (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

While I fully agree with @L235 that Maryana was answering under unimaginable stress, I do not see how a framing of parallel boards can mean anything other than the community board members being at odds with appointed ones. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 14:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Parallel boards could be at odds. Or they could just be following completely different expectations and priorities for the CEO (the only employee they have supervisory authority over). So there is the situation where they are not at odds, they are just having twice as many priorities - too many for the Foundation to deliver on and creating an impossible situation for the CEO. I wouldn't be surprised if this volunteer/appointed split resulted in situations where there weren't just more expectations, but that some of those expectations were in conflict in addition to having too many priorities. But that's speculation on my part (and yours). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I concede that Iskander could have meant different but not necessary conflicting views, though the criticism stands that this challenge does not necessitate subjugating the community elections in favor of the appointment process. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 15:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the Board is out of touch with what the community wants, that's the exact type of issue freely elected community Board members should be bringing to their attention, and that this should concern the rest of the Board enough to address that. The fact that their response is to disable the alarm, rather than addressing the problem it's calling attention to, is very concerning indeed. Seraphimblade (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It is impossible for me to emphasize what Seraphimblade has said enough. Some other things that stood out to me during our short discussion was what that paragraph about private information that Lorenzo sent meant. Maryana said we had to agree to disagree that Lorenzo was saying the disqualified candidates must keep what went on private. I also expressed concerns that this was a step back from previous messages about how candidates could indeed share that information. I don't think it's a matter of opinion, really, because what's said there is pretty clear. But even if it was somehow a disaster in communication, it doesn't change the fact that I was told by one of the candidates a few days ago that the WMF told them not to discuss this further. So from my perspective, what Maryana is saying here is pretty much a blatant lie. Also, I didn't get a chance to say this during the elections committee session, but when one of the board members said that our vetting is done by a third party independent organization and they look for all the things that any other board would look for, as if that comment would somehow magically resolve my concerns, really felt like it was missing the point. There's a reason I visibly shook my head in the room. We deserve to know what exactly these media checks are because what corporate boards consider acceptable behaviour is probably completely antithetical to what is aligned with our values as a movement. There's a drastic difference between dismissing someone because they have a background commiting fraud vs because they talked to the media or think there should be greater transparency in how we function as an organization. Clovermoss (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I, too, agree very much with Seraphimblade about how the BoT needs to be in touch with the community. I'm very disappointed to hear how those three representatives responded. (I'm sorry that Clovermoss and others were treated that way, and I'm also sorry to hear about the gun incident.) I'm trying very hard to see this from the opposing point of view, and I wonder whether any of what has been happening might have grown out of some sort of advice from WMF Legal. Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm on mobile (an area that Clovermoss has been trying to get improved for a while) so I'll try to keep this as brief as I can. I was also there in the group discussing governance (and had asked a question about Board's plans to address the multiple governments demands for Wikipedia to track more data about their users which Joe Sutherland answered pretty well.) It did feel like to me that Iskander was being dismissive of Clovermoss although I will say I also appreciated that Iskander was trying to be candid rather than being phony. I was also there in the Election Boards session and also expressed that I agreed with Clovermoss on the shortlisting issues. For time purposes, I left out how frustrating it feels to me that the Board by their actions doesn't appear to be listening. Abzeronow (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

When paid ~$500K USD per year, Iskander has a responsibility to explain the Board's decision-making beyond its finality, rather than blithely dismiss the concerns of someone so recently recognized for their value to the community. shows a deep misunderstanding of the role of the CEO/ED. Their job is to lead the professional staff according to the directives of the board. The only people who can speak for the board are the members of the board. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

This was the Conversation with the Board of Trustees session and anyone concerned about governance/the current state of the board was put into the breakout group with Maryana Iskander. The only two board members present with her led the groups about AI and finances. If they don't want to have her speak about the state of the board, they shouldn't have given her that role. Clovermoss (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

One trustee led the finance group. Kathy Collins who is the vice chair of the board was in the governance discussion with us and Maryana. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the correction because I did not notice her there. Maryana was the only one that spoke while I attended. Clovermoss (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Apology from Victoria posted to Wikimedia-L

https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/HZGTGJZGFD2UGWOHJWRTNFX742DZAKUM/
(reposting without comment) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · w:en) 08:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for merge

I propose that this page and 2025 WMF Board reform petition/translatable be merged, with the subpage’s content merged into the main page so that it’s easier for someone who doesn’t speak English to see the translation to their language. What do you guys think? ~2025-30385-58 (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer: Since you set up the subpage, what do you think? Clovermoss (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Not seeing any issue, but the translations will become outdated whenever a new signature is added, and a translation admin will then need to mark the updated version for translation. That is why I created it as a subpage. – DreamRimmer ■ 06:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Temporary account signatures

Many of the signatures by temporary accounts seem to have been made by the same user, as they were made from the same small IP range(s). NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 00:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I see more than 10 signatures whose signers are likely sockpuppets. Pinging @Clovermoss as the page's creator. Do you think something needs to be done? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 06:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I was okay with temporary accounts signing, but if they're all from the same small range... it's probably best to only keep the original signature. One vote per person because stacking the deck isn't the way to inspire change. Clovermoss (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

see Steward requests/Global § global block for ChronicleBooks885 socks. ltbdl (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Confirmed named accounts removed in 29711187, suspected temporary accounts removed in 29733804. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 18:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Clovermoss (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Not an offense, but why did you remove the Temporary Account signatures? They are allowed to sign the petition. Plus, there are blocked users on Wikipedia, such as Slowking4 and 2601AC that participate in signatures. ~2025-42865-35 (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Anyone followed up?

It seems nobody cares... Is it going to be just ignored? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sheminghui.WU: I haven't recieved any sort of "official" response, but I do indeed care about this. Once I start something, I'm in it for the long haul most of the time. I've been having some conversations behind the scenes to try and make things "better", but a lot of that work is slow and takes time. Clovermoss (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

And now? Is there still hope in this? 2601AC47 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

It's an uphill battle, but I'm still trying. Hope is a fragile thing, especially when you keep getting kicked in the face with proof that things need to change. Clovermoss (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Some notes from the Dec 2025 Board CAC call

On Thursday 11 Dec 2025, the Board held a Community Affairs Committee call. Here's a (partial) summary that I sent to a group-chat and was suggested I post here.

In the recorded part of the call, as well as announcing the new board members and saying goodbye to departing trustees and to Maryana, it was announced that, as a part of streamlining the board committees, the Community Affairs Committee is being dissolved, with 2 members of the board — Maciej Nadzikiewicz (User:Nadzik) and Victoria Doronina (User:Victoria) — being explicitly names as Community and Affiliate liaison trustees, with a note that it's every trustee's responsibility to engage with the Community and with Affiliates. The functions of the CAC will be spread across the Executive committee and the Product & Tech committee.

Nobody talked about the Board elections stuff or about increased regional participation, but I explicitly mentioned US-centrism and that 2 SWANA women (Esra'a al Shafei and Maryana Iskander) had just been replaced by white American women (Mayree Clark and Bernadette Meehan, the incoming CEO). Obviously this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but does mean that the Board and Bernadette need to be even more intentional about ensuring greater representation for perspectives from outside the USA does not get overlooked.

There were 3 breakout rooms for conversations that were not recorded:

• How searching and finding knowledge online is changing
• Future leadership of the Movement, including elections
• Users with extended rights

I was in the "Future leadership" room; as well as the conversation about representation that I mentioned, Hannah talked about many members of the community being disengaged from Foundation comms and we had a reasonable conversation about that in the room (where Maryana, and trustees Lorenzo, Maciej, Kathy Collins were all present, along with a handful of WMF staffers and Nat Tymkiv dropped in having also been in another room).

It was a good conversation, but obviously it remains to be seen what comes out of it. — OwenBlacker (Talk; he/him) 21:58, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to also copy over my notes from that meeting as well, since the board's official ones leave a lot out:

I was the one raising concerns about how the dissolution of the Community Affairs Committee might be perceived, as well as how information only seems to appear in certain channels. [...] The Community Affairs Committee is being dissolved out of the desire for a "leaner board" and because a community-specific space is not required when considering the needs of the community is supposedly part of everything the Board does. Two people assigned will become liaisons for affiliates and the community. There was a comment made about how great it is that the board has these open conversations in the first place because other non-profit organizations do not let people talk to their board. This was in response to me saying that many people did not feel heard. There was a comment about how these conversations are supposedly well-publicized but very few people are interested in participating but also how more participation wouldn't nessecarily be a good thing. Somebody mentioned being concerned about how to make people feel engaged without having them feel like they're being spammed. Clovermoss (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Update #2

I'm copying over what I wrote at w:Wikipedia:Village Pump (WMF): For the many people who are not subscribed to the mailing list, important information was shared about board election "reform". From my perspective, it's incredibly concerning. [9] Courtesy ping to Sohom Datta. I'm linking to his comment directly because it isn't corporate jargon and gets to the heart of what's really going on here.

That discussion also includes a link to m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2027/Proposed eligibility criteria and I think it's important that people are aware of this information so they have a chance to say something about it. Clovermoss (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Czarking0, Soni, Rotana, DarkGreenandSunny, Chaotic Enby, Yngvadottir, Femke, ltbdl, Vigneron, Kudpung, Chinmayee Mishra, Buidhe, Kline, HouseBlaster, Wbm1058, OwenBlacker, Matthewvetter, ValerioBozz, Fathoms Below, Fortuna imperatrix mundi, CommunityNotesContributor, Perfect4th, ComplexRational, Nemoralis, JuxtaposedJacob, Abade, Launchballer, A09, Tazerdadog, Ocaasi, Masssly, DraconicDark, Zblace, Tryptofish, Cremastra, SHB2000, Seraphimblade, ViridianPenguin, Thebiguglyalien, Polimerek, OhanaUnited, Pppery, Bawolff, Cryptic, Nigel Ish, Rutebega, and ToBeFree. There's a limit of 50 pings at once so the rest will come momentarily. Clovermoss (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Kowal2701, Abzeronow, Rexogamer, Cullen328, TE(æ)A,ea, Saroj, Ikan Kekek, Bunnypranav, XtexChooser, Steven Sun, ~2025-28418-41, Salvio giuliano, Mary Joanna, Phil Bridger, Alien333, Jan Kameníček, LightNightLights, TrameOscure, Vanamonde93, Hogü-456, Marcus Cyron, NaBUru38, Plutus, EggRoll97, Kusma, IllCom, Gigi Lamera, Matrix, Ternera, Doc James, Zezen, femboy clen, Ferien, RoySmith, Doug Weller, Jim.henderson, Consigned, Bishonen, Polomo, Justiyaya, Sapphaline, Mgjertson, Gaurav, ClaudineChionh, ~delta, Zache, Camelia boban, Choucas0, and Lee Vilenski. Clovermoss (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Nighfidelity, Jayen466, Ethn23, QuicoleJR, Yunkal, Pythoncoder, Hurluberlue, Fractal-Dreamz, Emnamizouni, Gryllida, Mozucat, Robert McClenon, Ripepette, K6ka, Wehwalt, أحمد ناجي, Neil Shah-Quinn, Slgrandson, Tvpuppy, Frood, CoffeeCrumbs, Newslinger, Opm581, Grnrchst, Janhrach, Oltrepier, GothicGolem29, Sänger, SmolPetra, Polygnotus, McDutchie, Yuyu, BusterD, and KaiMartin. Clovermoss (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Silver Dovelet, Scope creep, UpTheOctave!, Voyager640, Michaelgraaf, AkaruiHikari, SilverLocust, Coolclawcat, Rich Farmbrough, Bobby Cohn, Qcne, Waxworker, TechnoSquirrel69, GRuban, Oofgl, Reidgreg, CreativeLibrary460, Nocowardsoulismine, L3gacyb3ta, Frhdkazan, Egezort, Ca, BarntToust, James Allison, Shushugah, Sunnyboi18, lp0 on fire, Deryck Chan, KaiKemmann, Whyiseverythingalreadyused, Headbomb, Alexis Jazz, Octolin, BilledMammal, ShadowBallX, Lupe, InfernoHues, betseg, and Icepinner. Clovermoss (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Clovermoss, I'm also subscribed to wikimedia-l. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · email · w:en) 22:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Were we pinged because we're the only eligible or what? A09|(pogovor) 21:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@A09: Because you all signed the petition and this is a similar update for board reform. I mass pinged everyone awhile ago for a similar reason. If you'd rather not be notified about anything in the future, I can omit you. Clovermoss (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah I see, just needed to jog my memory. There are lots of things currently going on for me. Thanks for your help :) A09|(pogovor) 22:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Clover. I'm going through a tumultuous transition IRL right now so I haven't been following this, but I'll read up when I have some time. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Clovermoss, per Wikimedia Foundation elections/2027/Proposed eligibility criteria I'm not eligible. 😭😭😭 Oversimplified:

On Commons we have a total of 11 bureaucrats/checkusers/oversighters. One of those is ineligible because they're not fluent in English. Don't let the Germans know! Pinging @Sicherlich, Sänger, Ralf Roletschek— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Als er een criterium voor talen mag zijn, dan zou het minimaal drie talen voor minst gewoon borrel conversatie zijn.

Als je alleen Engels praat, ben je niet gekwalificeerd voor en internationaal, multilingual project als de Wikiversum.

If there should be any language criterium, it should be minimum 3 languages for at least good smalltalk.

Anyone with only English as a language doesn't qualify for an international, multilingual, project like the Wikiverse. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 13:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to hate the wmf but every time they do something I find them harder and harder to defend. Is there anyway that the community can get power back from the out of touch bureaucracy?? Buidhe (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Buidhe: We need to organize and make our voice heard. BMeehan-WMF said yesterday that she's open to conversations, even if she hasn't responded to anyone on-wiki since May 24 (SDeckelmann-WMF has also been ignoring people on-wiki). I had a frustrating conversation this morning with someone who insisted that one board member spends half his time on discord (and I've found it to be frustrating to explain even basic things about enwiki norms and trying to get across the need to be active where people actually are being met with complete refusal). People shouldn't have to be active on mailing lists, discord, telegram, go to in-person conferences, be a member of an affiliate etc to even have their foot in the door because most people are not in those spaces and it's a very self-contained bubble, even if that bubble has lots of different opinions. If we can solve the communication issue and not be met with denial when people like me say there is one and be listened to instead of people claiming they're listening to us while changing nothing, maybe things can actually change. Clovermoss (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping.

I'm disappointed at the current WMF Board. Hope that in the next election the community can get power back. XtexChooser (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss. Just dropping in with my current status and thoughts. I jumped through all the hoops to sign up for virtual attendance at Wikimania yesterday. I'm finding it to be a big tease. The user interface between the event wikis and Eventyay is convoluted and confusing. By the time I figure out the schedule in my time zone and where and when anything I might be interested in attending is happening I fear I've already missed it. Presumably this matter is being covered somewhere at Wikimania, but, oh well. So far all I've figured out is how to randomly enter some room and then find out what's happening in that room after I entered it. It's hard enough to stay on top of the schedule and figure out what's happening at a conference I am attending in person; it's really near-impossible at a conference where I'm only virtual. I did manage to attend a small tech conference on Discord recently. That platform is good for events advertised well in advance and where there aren't half a dozen online conferences all happening at once; i.e. it's easier to navigate. The Bureaucrat role seems on the verge of deprecation as unnecessary and redundant, but, if the WMF Board wants to make it an entry-path, that would revitalize Bureaucrat elections as de facto primary elections, i.e. volunteers interested in serving on the WMF Board could run in a Bureaucrat election as a first step. I spend most of my wiki time in self-contained bubbles, with several self-contained bubbles competing for my attention. Right now I'm cleaning up 15-year old cleanup templates. I figure if nobody has tended to these 14 years after a consensus formed to deprecate them, then if I want them gone, then I have to do it myself. If you want most anything done you have to do it yourself. I think there's a corollary to this. If you want something done that you actually cannot do yourself, like allocating funding for the projects, it's damn near-impossible to get done. You can futilely spend a year trying to get it done, but then your 15-year backlog becomes a 16-year backlog... Sigh. Anyhow, please do keep trying. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

That is an interesting perspective Wbm1058, we as a movement could turn bureaucrat elections into WMF board preelections and the problem would be mostly solved.

In the long run I think we need to draft by-laws for the WMF board that enshrine a balance of power and democratic principles within our movement and push to have them adopted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC)