Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Formal Complaint on Deliberate Defamation an Exposing Private Information by a Board of Trustees Member

This case is declined. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.

Parties
Parties	Notifications
Ravan (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
Victoria	Special:Diff/29450766

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Jrogers (WMF), Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien. Ravan (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ravan

Description of the problem - (Ravan)

I am submitting this formal complaint regarding deliberate defamatory and inappropriate conduct by Victoria, a current member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

Victoria publicly circulated an email—shared on Meta—containing confidential information about the Board’s internal decision regarding my exclusion, and that of another candidate (Lane), from the current Board of Trustees election process. In her message, Victoria explicitly disclosed details of the Board’s deliberations and added misleading commentary. She wrote:

“It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of Wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.”

This statement exposes confidential content from Board and candidate meetings and includes false and harmful claims. At no point did anyone from the Board or the Foundation ask me to “withdraw with grace.” In contrast, I had agreed with the Chair of the Board and the Foundation’s CEO to remain silent in order to protect the Foundation’s reputation and avoid unnecessary controversy.

Despite this, Victoria publicly shared internal information and misrepresented facts, creating reputational harm both to me personally and to the Foundation.

In another part of her email, Victoria stated:

“Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity.”

This statement is defamatory and discriminatory. My social media activity has consistently focused on advocating for empathy and calling for an end to violence in Gaza. Suggesting that such advocacy “poses risks to the WMF’s reputation” is both misleading and damaging. It also implicitly portrays the Foundation as aligning with biased or politically motivated narratives, which undermines its neutrality and commitment to freedom of expression.

According to the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC), Section 3.1 – Harassment, Insults, this behavior falls under “insults, slurs, or stereotypes” and “attacks based on personal characteristics or political affiliation.” Victoria’s comments meet these definitions, as they publicly target me and distort the Foundation’s values for reputational damage.

Her message has already caused significant harm. Many community members have publicly thanked her for “clarifying” the reasons for my exclusion, reinforcing false narratives and spreading misinformation. I was compelled to respond publicly to correct these inaccuracies, despite my initial intention to remain silent.

Victoria’s actions constitute:

Breach of confidentiality of Board deliberations;
Defamation of my personal and professional reputation;
Indirect defamation of the Wikimedia Foundation, by implying political bias; and
Violation of the UCoC, particularly regarding respect, fairness, and the avoidance of harm.

The damage to my reputation and to the Foundation’s credibility is substantial and, in some respects, irreversible. I therefore request a formal investigation into this matter, with appropriate measures taken to address the breach of confidentiality and defamation.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Ravan)

Victoria

Description of the problem - (Victoria)

Previous attempts at a solution - (Victoria)

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other feedback (Rotana)

I was honestly really surprised by the tone used in the email. I feel like it directly harms the WF’s image, especially since Victoria holds such a sensitive position. It's not appropriate for someone representing WF to speak to volunteers in that way.

We spent days asking for clarification and transparency, and then Victoria responds so informally. I don’t understand what she meant by that sentence she wrote “the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates.”!!

Is that really an acceptable way to speak to us? And when she says that Ravan’s posts on social media are harming the WF’s reputation, why? How does Ravan’s opinion about what’s happening inside Gaza harm anyone’s reputation? Even if the post was critical, does Victoria have the right to share that kind of response publicly?

Victoria should also be careful about what she says and how she shares information, especially in such an informal and careless way.

What really shocked me was the phrase, “because the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity” What is that supposed to mean?

Honestly, I don’t think it’s possible to read Victoria’s comments in good faith. They clearly damage Ravan’s reputation. If I didn’t know who Ravan was, I would probably assume from Victoria’s message that she did something unethical or harmful.Rotana🦋 (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Cipher Nox)

From what everyone has stated, I believe Victoria has crossed the line. She breached confidential information from the Board, and publicly embarrassed some people. That is not how a trustee is supposed to act, especially when it comes to confidentiality.

When she said the reputational risk to WMF is worse than the risk to gender equity, that is just wrong. It implies that gender equity is negative, and that is wrong. Equity is of utmost importance, and that goes against everything WMF stands for when it comes to being inclusive and fair.

Regarding what Ravan posted online, it is an opinion about Gaza, and the people there, showing she cares. Why is that now damaging to WMF's reputation? It is the same as saying; we will silence you if people do not like what you have to say. That is bad for an organization that promotes open discourse and is nonpartisan.

I understand the Board does its own thing, but when a trustee shares stuff like this publicly, it affects everyone. The U4C should be able to speak up when it breaks the rules about being respectful or not discriminating (as per 3.1), no matter who does it. If not, it looks like there are different rules for regular editors and board members. ـ ـ Cipher Nox (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from an in-line reply at #Other feedback (CommunityNotesContributor). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you overlooked the main issue. The question is not who holds authority or whether the words count as "official". The point is what Victoria actually wrote. Her statement singled out a person because of posts about Gaza, a topic that mixes politics with human suffering. That behavior is wrong, whether she typed it while wearing her "Wikimedian" hat or her "trustee" hat.

You treat the matter as if it were a form to stamp, yet a living person received a public slap. Victoria wrote that Ravan's social media output turns her into a "risk" for the WMF's good name and that protecting gender equity matters less than keeping up a shiny public image. Those sentences fall squarely under the UCoC.

If an ordinary volunteer had typed the same lines, a report would fly within minutes. The moment a board member does it, everyone starts mumbling about "jurisdiction". That dodge fails. The U4C sits there for one reason: to stop every single breach of the UCoC, even when the breach comes from the top row of the table. ـ ـ Cipher Nox (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Clovermoss)

I don't think the issue here is nessecarily confidentiality. I sometimes worry that confidentiality is used as a shield rather than whether or not something is actually confidential. I actually wish we knew what the other board members perspectives were because the only information we have is Victoria's and no one has publically disagreed with her interpretation, which has certain implications when there was an unanimous decision to remove both Ravan and Lane as candidates. The email also provides implications that Lane would disclose non-public financial information without consent, which seems like a shockingly bad assumption of bad faith on her part. If the UCOC accepts this, I'd focus on what has actually been said instead of what we don't know. Victoria claims that this can all be understood using publically available information and if that's the case, people should be able to figure out whether they think this treatment of Ravan is okay or not under the UCOC. I realize that this situation might get a bit complicated because well, we're talking about the literal Board of Trustees here. Ideally, they'd share what information they have about everything with the committee, but I'm not sure that is a realistic outcome. It might help things, though. Clovermoss (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (CommunityNotesContributor)

In response to U4C members response so far, Barkeep49 and Civvì. Per Victoria writing "I'm writing this as a Wikimedian", she is no doubt not exempt from BoT code of conduct nor complaints, but she did just exempt herself from "official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation", thus opening the door for this U4C complaint. Had this been a decision on behalf of the foundation, this would be a different story. It was not. I otherwise believe defamatory statements made by an editor, on a Wikimedia platform, in no official capacity, is eligible for such a U4C process; not thinking one has jurisdiction is not the same as not having jurisdiction, unless told otherwise by a higher body. Whether BoT will look into such a complaint as well as is somewhat irrelevant to this compliant, and is more dependent on whether a complaint will be filed with BoT directly or not. This is not part of the complaint and should hold no bearing. How BoT decide to react to such a complaint would likely be different from U4C, which is the entire purpose of having different avenues for making such complaints. Let's at least have one worthwhile avenue, please. CNC (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Usucha)

It is pretty evident that the U4C does not have jurisdiction and the BoT does, so the case should be denied.

Section 4.2.1 of the U4C Charter states that “the U4C will not have jurisdiction to enforce the UCoC when a high-level decision-making body is able to.” And it is plainly clear (and unalleged to the contrary) that the Board of Trustees is able.

And as such, it does not need to be clarified whether a board member’s statement constitutes an “official action of the Wikimedia Foundation”. Usucha (🍵) 07:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC) (edited Usucha (🍵) 20:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

Hi @Ravan:

regarding board confidentiality: if the confidentiality was breached, the board will take measures (this is not a UCoC issue)
regarding possible damage to the reputation of WMF: it is up to the board what measures to take.
Regarding the UCoC relevant claims between you and Victoria: I'm sure you know about the press coverage of your social media that supposedly led to your removal from the Board of Trustees candidates shortlist. Which information about you given by Victoria was not published in the press before? --Ghilt (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ghilt.

Regarding 1st & 2nd points, where else should anyone report a violation conducted by a board member?

For your third question: I had several meetings with the board, in none of them I was informed that the press coverage of an extremist right-wing pro genocidal press of my candidacy is what led to my exclusion.

This is a new statement I'm hearing now from you!

The problem with Victoria is not the information of the press which was public, but her claim that " WMF is sometimes too nice and careful about the reputation of Wikimedians and this leaves room for speculation. In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the reinstatement of these candidates."

The first impression of her statement is that WMF was too nice to expose the horrific things led to my exclusion but now she is not that nice and she will explain to the public that Ravan needs to be more careful in her practicing her free non violent right of expression so she doesn't piss off any extremists who will influence and force their agenda on the board of WMF!

Even though what she wrote is not true, but is this a proper statement by a current WMF trustee which -As explained to me- need to be super cautious because whatever she says it's counted and attributed to the board in a way or another?

She even stated that" WMF reputation is more important than gender equity", if this is not defamatory, then what is it? Why would my candidacy would be anyway threatening the WMF reputation?

I believe that Non Profit Foundations tend always to keep their reputation as a humanitarian and defending of human rights, transparent, impartial, not biased, and independent strong entities.

Is this the reputation Victoria meant in her public statement? Ravan (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have jurisdiction over the board or the WMF employees. I can only have a look at the potential UCoC violations between users in wikimedia context. As i read Victoria's statement, she explicitly wrote that she doesn't represent the views of the board, but merely her own views. Also, she claimed all information given was public. As i wrote, if she breached her duties to the board, the board will decide on that, not us. Which potential UCoC violations do you find most problematic? Ghilt (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt According to the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC), Section 3.1 – Harassment, Insults, her email and statements falls under “insults, slurs, or stereotypes” and “attacks based on personal characteristics or political affiliation.” Victoria’s comments meet these definitions, as they publicly target me and distort the Foundation’s values for reputational damage.

Plus misinformation, as she stated info I haven't heard directly from the board in all our meetings.Ravan (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravan have you submitted a complaint using the board resolution process? Barkeep49 (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It feels important to note Victoria's statement on wikimedia-l today. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Due to my long-standing professional relationship with the complainant, I will recuse myself from this case. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I almost just declined, but I thought I would put it here in case someone can convince me I'm wrong. I do not think the U4C has jurisdiction. If Victoria used information she had as a board member to violate the UCoC, whether or not she acted as an individual, it would be up to the board to fix it. The board is definitely a high-level decision-making body (it's in some ways the ultimate high level decision making body) and so those bodies are responsible for policing their own members. Further, I do not think that even if there was a sysemtic failure we could intervene as the U4C has no jurisdiction over official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation which any board decision would be. I would be in favor of modifying that slightly to make clear this also applies to the board at our next annual review, but even with the current language I think we lack jurisdiction. Speaking personally, I have a lot of questions about what the board did here and actually think there's a scenario where they acted responsibly given their legal obligations, but also think there's a scenario where they decided to prioritize people who would agree with existing members over diversity of opinions. But my personal curiosity and concern doesn't change my obligation as a U4C member to only act when we have jurisidiction. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning towards declining. Even if not specifically listed in the Charter, the Board is definitely a high level decision making body so I do not think we have jurisdiction. The BoT has an own code of conduct, an own Complaints Resolution Procedure and has all the necessary structures for self-governance and for dealing with allegations of breaches of its Code of Conduct and other internal rules. I am not sure that the sentence "I'm writing this as a Wikimedian" exempts a Board member from the board's rules. --Civvì (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept votes

Decline votes

After reviewing the information presented by the complainant, I need to land under decline. Firstly on procedural grounds: Victoria is a member of the board, and as such her actions in an official capacity cannot be scrutinized under the UCoC. While she did say that she made the post in her unofficial capacity, I cannot make a complete separation between the two, as the information discussed was directly related to her position on the board and knowledge she gained in the context of that position.

But I am also here on the merits of the case request. Victoria posted a summary of what, in her opinion, were the reasons of the board in making their decision to exclude two candidates. Neither of the reasons given were inflamatory or appeared to contradict other publicly available information. Neither seem to have been intended to damage the reputation of either candidate - the opposite may be true, by reigning in speculation on why the candidates were removed. I do not see either doxing or defamation here. Apologies to the complainant, as this is clearly a sensitive issue and I do not agree with how this was done, broadly speaking, by the board, but this does not appear to be a UCoC violation or one that the U4C would have jurisdiction to investigate. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have had the opportunity to talk to a variety of people about this over the past couple of days, including today to Kathy Collins (board vice chair). As I expressed today, my confidence in the board has been shaken, because I cannot tell if the board continues to share values that I think members of Wikimedia projects largely share including a commitment to democratic principles. I do feel better after hear what Kathy had to say, but I continue to question if this was a unanimous vote because the board always votes unanimously and they don't have diversity of opinions or if it was a unanimous vote because of the strength of the reasons behind removal.
However, as much as I would like a platform to explore those questions, and others, raised by this filing I have to uphold my own responsibility to act within the powers given to me by the people who voted for the Enforcement GUidelines and Charter, even if many of them are now asking me to do differently. Victoria is a board member and so if she violates the UCoC in her board capacity - which includes as an individual - then it is up to the board to decide how to handle the UCoC violation. I sincerely hope that Ravan initiates that process and I hope if Ravan does that the board takes it seriously as it fufills its duties as a high level decision making body. And if Victoria violates the UCoC on ruwiki, I hope the Russian ArbCom handles it, and if it's on Wikidata (as the project after ruwiki she's edited the most) I would be happy to consider it. But as the current case is outside our jurisidiction I end up here as a decline. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reflecting on what Victoria wrote "as a Wikimedian", and whether her board and wikimedian roles are separable or not (the board role excludes from our jurisdiction), the conclusion is: the content of her posting was board-related content, regardless whether the roles are separable or not. Therefore, Ravan, the correct way to address your issue is here. Please inform us of the outcome, if possible. On a personal note, i don't think last-minute removals from shortlists are trust-building. --Ghilt (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained in the previous section, there is nothing else to do but decline. As a Wikimedian I waited a while before declining because I was somewhat naively expecting a reply from the other party. However, I understand why this will not happen, and why a member of the BoT would prefer not to comment personally on ongoing decisions and events related to their role. Ravan, I suggest to resort to the procedure for investigating allegations of a breach of the Board of Trustees Code of Conduct and, as far as possible, keep us and the community informed about the outcome. --Civvì (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like Ajraddatz mentioned, much of this falls outside the scope of what the U4C has jurisdiction to investigate. I waited to see if there would be any further developments, and now that Victoria has apologized, I don’t think taking this matter further is necessary. Personally, this election has felt quite messy, and Victoria’s earlier email only made the situation worse. That said, her apology message suggests she understands the issue and is taking steps to mitigate it, which is a positive development compared to how things were.--BRP^ever 12:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Outside our jurisdiction. dbeef (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

We have seen this. On behalf of the U4C. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]