I have been talking with them about reputation management. My concern is that because I have been part of this election, campaigning, and review process for so long, nearly two years because I ran in the last election also, that it appears scandalous to remove me a few days before the start of the election. Wikipedia is the only very large Internet platform which is self-governed by its user community. Elections are sacred, democracy is on the ballot in every election we do, and this is the most important election on the Internet.
I want to confirm -
I am negotiating with the WMF who is being helpful and supportive in my exit from the election
The main reason of me not fitting with the board is my participation withThe Signpost, with that being part of my social media presence and habit of talking to journalists. I hope that everyone has always found my stories positive, good journalism. I do not criticize the Wikimedia Foundation or the Wikimedia Movement and I encourage everyone to say good things that are constructive, but I am an independent journalist. It is correct that in Wikipedia, there is a community side of things and a WMF side of things. I know a lot more about the community side of things.
I asked the WMF to share the reasons why they are taking me off the ballot. I have a text of these reasons that they wrote for me. I asked for them to adapt those reasons for publication. They tell me that they can say something. I consent to any disclosure because saying anything is better and safer for me than the ambiguity.
The WMF invites to join the election as a candidate in the next election in two years. Another major concern is my lack of experience in wiki community collective decision making. They offered training to get me ready to the standard that they expect of candidates.
There might be more information. In the midst of this happening, I have other parts of life, and all of this is so sudden that I hardly have time to think and comment.
I feel the need to comment because of the social context in Wikipedia. To remove someone from the ballot immediately before an election, in the context of wiki community culture and how we feel about elections, would normally only happen for a sex offense, fraud, violent act, or something serious at that level. I recognize that reasonable people will look at this situation and wonder such things about me, for me to be so seriously removed suddenly out of schedule. I feel for my own safety that I have to get ahead of that suspicion, and I am working with the Wikimedia Foundation to communicate the more accurate situation which is that the board simply does not feel that I am a suitable candidate, and that the reasons are practical rather than scandalous. If I were elected, and I think that I would have been, then it is still the board's decision of whether to allow me to join. Who I am and what I do is simply not what the other board members want to join them.
Here are some positive things you can do if you have any energy:
Write Wikipedia community journalism forThe Signpost. Unrelated to this election, if you do not support your journalists and newspapers, then you will soon lose them.
Every Wikimedia community election process needs assertive volunteer support. Besides there being ameta:Wikimedia Foundation elections committee, that group of volunteers has some restrictions from the Wikimedia Foundation. It is a great group, but for example, external community pressure could have helped set a timeline where if the WMF did not want someone on the ballot, then that could have been detected months ago.
Love you all. I signed up to stand as a candidate in an election, not to face the situation of being suddenly removed right before voting then have to explain what happened to everyone who is campaigning for me, and everyone who committed to vote for me.
That seems, at least at first glance, extremely heavyhanded and shady from the WMF. No journos? That's not in any bylaws anywhere, and disqualifying community candidates based on board's personal taste is the kind of thing you'd expect in a Banana republic. I'll wait for the WMF's response, but this is the nextWP:FRAM-level of drama bullshit stewing in a pressure cooker about to blow.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}19:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This makes no sense whatsover. <checks username> You've been editing for over 15 years, 60k edits entails a huge amount of community governance and decisionmaking. I need to take a walk.– SJ +20:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will whatever body that made this decision make an official public statement on the matter and specifically what Bylaws they are using to justify this decision? Why or why not?
Were anyWikimedia Foundation Bylaws cited in the WMF's notification to you that you were disqualified from consideration in this election?
I am seeing that the Bylaw that seems to most obviously apply isSection 3. Selection and Appointment, (C) Community and Affiliate-selected Trustees, (ii) - "(ii) The Board of Trustees shall convey its priorities and requirements for members, as set forth in Article IV, Section 3(A) above, and shall determine the dates, rules and regulation of the approval procedures. The Board shall determine who is qualified to participate in the approval process for Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees." Is this the Bylaw in question?
Can we work on changing this part of the bylaws such that it's more explicit than just "The Board shall determine.." - because that is far too much stretch room for them to remove without cause.
Is there a process of community oversight in the Bylaws surrounding Board elections?
What can we do to make bylaws around Board election disqualifications more transparent and community driven going forward?
I'm sorry, Lane. That sucks, and I understand your concern that some might assume you were removed for good cause. I note from readingNataliia Tymkiv's announcement that 2/3 of the candidates were removed, 8 out of 12. I also find it both condescending and odd that the WMF are offering you coaching in beefing up your movement résumé. If that was their concern—and the things mentioned in the announcement suggest it wasn't—they should leave it to the voters to weigh the candidates' experience.Yngvadottir (talk)22:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly obvious that the board wants to handpick all the seats. There's about four candidates left, to fill about four open seats, something like that. I'm sitting out this pointless charade, the so-called election is not worth my time. This feels just like those corporate proxies where you have the option to vote, as the board recommended, on a ballot where the number of candidates matches the number of open seats. Time after time, everyone I want to vote for gets screened out before I have a chance to vote for them. Nobody on the board represents the editing community. In my 14+ years as an editor, that's how I feel it's always been, and always will be. Unlike corporations, there isn't even a way to launch a proxy fight, since you can't buy votes by buying shares in the WMF. –wbm1058 (talk)01:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree that shortlisting by the Elections Committee and further filtering by the incumbent Board to achieve unified views is asinine, but to note, we are left with four candidates for two seats. Still ridiculous...ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬)00:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Lane was everyone's front runner or not - he was my co-favourite untilWereSpielChequers was already kicked out at the pre-selection - utter shame on the members of the election committee and another black eye for the WMF. They clearly want a board of yesmen (single gender noun because no females are left on the list) who will continue to maintain the board's ostensible main task of rubber-stamping the WMF's plans and decisions which are not infrequently at odds with thevolunteer community's needs for transparency, better management, and correct allocation of funds. While running the danger of accusations of being a conspiracy theorist, IMHO the way this entire election has been organised evokes the manner of show elections in one-party totalitarian states. The community has responded in greater depth on a Meta pageHERE.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)02:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is really disappointing. This was going to be the first time I was going to bother voting in the election for the board and I planned to vote for you. The offer for coaching seems somewhat insulting because it's not like you weren't a viable candidate.Clovermoss🍀(talk)10:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The clear democratic backsliding at the foundation is saddening. An election where the powers that be hand pick who can run is no election at all.Bawolff (talk)10:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Do you know what the best way to push back against it is? I've never really been good at just accepting that unfairness is the way things have to be.Clovermoss🍀(talk)14:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Clovermoss: I see four things we could do: individuals can ask tospeak to trustees (per the board's suggested route of talking), for Arbcom to take concerns to folks they talk to at WMF (or is that only T&S?), for us to write an open letter of concern, and see if there is a consensus for a watchlist notice to boycot the vote? Voting is supposed to start on Wednesday, so we have another 2 working days to get clarity and protest if this is what it seems to be. In FRAM, the mass resignations were the heaviest lever the community used.—Femke 🐦 (talk)21:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke: A community letter seems like the easiest option. I know some people who work at the WMF, but I doubt they have any more power to do anything about this as an individual than I do. An open letter would show that the community at large is upset about this. Collective efforts are harder to completely dismiss. I'm not sure how I'd go about actually getting this done, though. I'd also want to make sure Lane is okay with it. I know there's been a few times in the past where people have tried to help me in ways I didn't want help. So courtesy ping toBluerasberry as well. I'm okay with drafting something, but I'm unsure of where to put it, how to get the central notice, etc.Clovermoss🍀(talk)00:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss, open letters in the form of a petition sometimes do work by bringing enough pressure to bear on the WMF that they can no longer pretend that the issue does not exist. However, the WMF and the board are known for their intransigence, so nothing will change n time for this year's election. Having had first-hand experience of how this can be successfully achieved (over 400 signatures), I would suggest :
Leaving a message on the talk page of every senior member of the WMF staff, and the BoT and its election committee.
Emailing every senior member of the WMF staff, and the BoT and its election committee.
Leaving a message on the talk page of everyone who was or is involved in the Movement Charter and its drafting
Mass message to everyone who has commented on this issue, or on any other discussions on BoT election now or in the past giving them a link to the petition page
A link on every department of the VP
Signpost article
Press release
and while this is a cross-movement issue , informing Commons, other major language Wikipedias, and other WMF projects and affiliates in the best ways possible for maximum reach.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)01:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The timing of this disqualification seems last minute and unfair. I look forward to supporting Lane in future WMF elections but also understand if he chooses not to run again after this mess. -Wil540 art (talk)13:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry, I am sorry that you are experiencing this. Changing the vetting and confirmation process to happen before the vote has a significant influence on the vote it self and thus feels unfair to the candidates and to us as the voters. Is there a compelling reason why this change could not have been socialized with the communityAfter the elections? . This raises an issue about the legitimacy of the election committee which is constituted by existing trustees, which goes against the democratic principle of an independent body overseeing the election process. If an affiliate did something similar, that election result could cited as undemocratic and overturned by Afcom. In this case there is no way to remedy this unfortunate decision. Can the WMF commit to a review of the election process going forward? --Thuvack |talk17:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A point on affcom, they could delist an organization as being an offial movement affiliate but do not have corporate governance authority over independent incorporated NGOs.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)17:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings us to the issue that the WMF has a self perpetuating board (one that appoints its own members and can take in the opinion of the communities if it wishes to but is not required to). We have never actually had true elections but only opinion polls for the board. The communities have no actual legal authority over the WMF unlike a member based organization, which most, if not all our affiliates are.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)17:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please rest assured, Lane, that you are held in the same high regard by not only English Wikipedia, but the Wikimedia community, regardless of not being included in the final round of candidates. When I reflect back to the original slate of candidates, several candidates for whom I had been considering voting have now been eliminated, between the shortlisting and this additional vetting step, and I'm disappointed that we'll have only 4 candidates to choose from. I think that almost all of the original candidates have been held in high regard by the contributing community. I wish that the Board of Trustees had announced their intention to do additional screening and vetting of candidates prior to voting at a point earlier in the election cycle; it occurs to me that it may have been helpful for at least some of the additional vetting to have occurred prior to the shortlisting of candidates, which could have provided some guidance to the affiliates who participated in the shortlisting. On the other hand, I strongly believe that this level of vetting should have been incorporated into the candidate selection process (for either elected or appointed seats) at least 10 years ago (after it was acknowledged that the prior vetting practices were insufficient to identify certain issues), and I am very happy to see it happening before voting occurs.Risker (talk)17:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to say but wanted to agree that I'm sure anyone seeing this whole affair thinks much more that something's up with the WMF, or at the worst that the WMF is being picky and doesn't like journalists, rather than that you did something such that this would be actually appropriate.Mrfoogles (talk)04:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything about this from the rationales to their application to Lane and the timing is bizarre and unsettling. With Lane's consent above, I hope those involved will articulate a candidate-specific explanation (or verification of the reasons he provided). If lack of experience with leadership/governance/organizing is part of it and that was viewed as a reason to disqualify Lane Freaking Rasberry of all people, then it is simply an erroneous misapplication and reinstatement is probably the most sensible way forward. —Rhododendritestalk \\19:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could see the board as believing "too entangled in all kinds of media to untangle" themselves as sufficient justification to remove a candidate from being allowed to stand. I however think that is overstepping what level of vetting they should be allowed to apply.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)19:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's straight up baffling to me how Lane's engagement with the community could be perceived as a disadvantage. If anything, that kind of initative should bepraised. I agree that vetting against this is going too far. It's preventing people from voting for candidates that they'd feel would actually represent them. Community-WMF tensions can be pretty rough sometimes and actions like this send a really strong and negative message.Clovermoss🍀(talk)20:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would think, it's whether they see 'reporting on' as a potential conflict with the fiduciary duties (reporting on, is generally a coi with being the thing reported on -- eg., it is or it is not independent). Also, "lack of experience with leadership/governance/organizing" would likely be in comparison to the other candidates, not just some level.Alanscottwalker (talk)20:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a conflict to be transparent about what the board is doing, then that's a problem in itself. Obviously there's some details that would probably have to remain confidential, but I don't see any reason that Lane continuing to do the work he does would be an issue at all. It wouldn't be independent anymore but that'd be like refusing to promote someone because they're too good at their job. I trust that people would take certain perspectives with a bit more skepticism but that doesn't make it not worth doing.
It'd be different if he was writing constant hot takes that were unnecessarily inflammatory, but he's not doing anything even remotely like that. To be quite frank, I think Lane's more pro-WMF than even I am. I've openly criticized certain decisions in the past and yet people have told me that they think I'm "too nice". I was obviously tame enough to be put forth as an option for WOTY. Diverse perspectives are important. We need people like Lane that understand the community.Clovermoss🍀(talk)00:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, many times someone else exercises a judgement, others will say I would not exercise it that way. Apparently, the board or some subset of the board has always had the final say on the qualification of candidates and who takes a seat, and previously it was done after the general election and now before (which presumably now makes the election the final say on which two of the four will join), but it is still their judgment. They are the ones with the fiduciary duty. Whether Lane is the only one who can bring a diverse perspective is perhaps an open question, though. At any rate, you probably don't see reporters running for an office at the same time as being reporters for a reason. --Alanscottwalker (talk)10:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss The way I see it, I don't think it is necessarily transparency that they are worried about, but the reporting on internal WMF politics by outside media (which will not have the nuance of internal talk page discussions/internal pushback against features), which I do understand (even though I'm not 100% sure that I support/gel/agree with it). Also, to my understanding Lane is much more outspoken in raising issues through public channels, whereas you are more critical of the WMF, you choose to raise much of this through private channels/on wiki noticeboards instead of more public channels. Contrast that with Lane saying the following "Please consider that right now, the Wikimedia Foundation is proposing to replace some of the text in Wikipedia articles from the content written by humans" in his candidate statement which was subsequently posted on his YouTube channel. The problem is not the criticism, it is the platform of criticism. Both you and I have been very very critical (probably more than Lane) of WMF's actions regarding Simple Summaries internally and on talk pages, that does not mean we were comfortable with putting out public statement insinuating the WMF was proposing to replace human generated text with AI text months after the actual incident happened and the WMF responded by shutting down the experiment. The fact that this statement can be now cited out of context by Fox News/404 Media (to give a example) to discredit Wikipedia/WMF and become a detriment to the community as a whole is the problem here.Sohom (talk)15:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to think about what you said here, as it's more convincing to me than Alan's statement. I was percieving Lane's contributions to the Signpost as no different than people doing external communications like writing on Diff, while being clear what's his perspective on the way thingsshould be when warranted. I'm less aware of the other activities, although my heart wants to give the benefit of the doubt because I've been interviewed by journalists that will then publish their pieces months after we talked (which if I had talked about anything time-sensitive would have had the risk of becoming outdated with time).
Being on the board does limit certain activities. I for example was unable to work directly with staff at the WMF which slowed down / paused a number of effects i was working on. Would Lane be required to give up his journalistic efforts regarding the movement? To some degree probably yes.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)17:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it would not be unreasonable for giving up the journalistic efforts to be a condition of joining the board, which Lane could decide to accept or withdraw.
@OwenBlacker Lane says in his candidacy:I give interviews to media, I post videos to YouTube, I publish as a researcher, I write for The Signpost newspaper, and do whatever I can to get attention. I will ensure transparency and accountability by doing what I always do, which is talk online. I set up a Right to Information project on Meta-Wiki because years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user community to organize to make public information requests to me. Asking a just elected candidate to go back on one of their core campaign promises or withdraw, would probably attract a fair bit of unwanted coverage. I don't necessarily agree with the way this was done (the correct approach would have been to communicate the issues and not disqualify them and I don't understand the two year bar) but I can see why folks among the WMF would have considered Lane a cause for caution that is not "lets stifle all criticism".Sohom (talk)23:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was allowed to be a candidate and was on ballots last year (2024), so something would have had to have changed for him to be allowed to run last year, but disqualified for this year, otherwise the Board is not being consistent.Hexatekin (talk)04:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hexatekin Because last year there was a lesser amount of scrutiny on Wikipedia internal politics, that did not require Lane to pass a second screening (which is typically done before assigning the person a board seat).Sohom (talk)05:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The board previously did their screening after the election, and now they do it before. I think Risker above suggested they should do their screening earlier. --Alanscottwalker (talk)11:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They will still do screening after the election, as well as before the election. The two candidates who pass the community selection will not be seated until after the board votes on them, which is the only vote that matters. Also, there's precedent for candidates to be screened and un-elected even after they've been seated on the board. –wbm1058 (talk)13:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right, the full board always gets the final say. But, imo, they are extremely unlikely, initially, to go against the smaller committee of the board that they selected to do this vetting, unless something new and shocking arises. (That could be akin to telling those committee members they now don't trust them, so they might as well resign from the board). And yes, the full board has the standard board power to remove members, after they have been seated. --Alanscottwalker (talk)21:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, writing just before I went to bed means I probably didn't say quite what I meant.
I agree with you @Sohom Datta, but I can understand why the Board might not consider that level of transparency to be appropriate.
Personally, I think the WMF Board should encourage the kind of transparency Lane was offering and I'm incredibly disappointed at the exclusion of these two candidates. Combined with Esra'a al Shafei recently retiring from the Board and being replaced by someone who does not offer the same level of diverse insight, I am very concerned as to what is going on at the Foundation's Board. —OwenBlacker(he/him;Talk)06:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes things on a board need to be kept within the board because of laws or regulations. Sometimes they need to be kept for litigation or financial exposure. Sometimes they need to be kept to protect people, etc.
I can not help but wonder if the Board felt that Ravan's disqualification was a foregone conclusion but that they felt they had to eliminate someone else as well to not give the appearance that she was singled out. I do not like that the Board has put themselves in a position where it is even possible to think such things.AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk)22:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a list of questions to the Board atFoundation:Resolution talk:Elections Committee - and I will await any opportunity to provide additional community input into this issue. TheWikimedia Foundation Bylaws state in Section 3. Selection and Appointment, (C) Community and Affiliate-selected Trustees, (ii) - "(ii) The Board of Trustees shall convey its priorities and requirements for members, as set forth in Article IV, Section 3(A) above, and shall determine the dates, rules and regulation of the approval procedures. The Board shall determine who is qualified to participate in the approval process for Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees." Did the Board in fact convey its requirements for members? It doesn't appear that they adequately conveyed them to candidates or to us as voters.Hexatekin (talk)00:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to express my solidarity with all candidates who have been removed from the WMF board election shortlist. This sudden exclusion, right before the voting begins, raises serious concerns about transparency, fairness, and accountability in the election process. Community trust in the governance of Wikimedia relies on clear, open, and consistent procedures. Actions like this undermine the legitimacy of the elections and send a troubling message about whose voices and experiences are valued in decision-making. I hope the WMF takes this as an opportunity to review and improve its processes to ensure that future elections truly reflect the principles of openness and community oversight.Mr. Ibrahem (talk)16:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot make a full comment without consulting the whole committee (although I have passed this request on to them). I can say is that this was a decision made by the WMF Board of Trustees and not the Elections Committee. Anybody concerned is welcome to email the Elections Committee (our email can be found atthe bottom of the page here) or theBoard of Trustees directly.ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me!17:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ThadeusOfNazereth: Thank you. I just wanted to stress the importance of taking this seriously above. I appreciate a sign that people are paying attention. Preferably there would've been stronger communication from the beginning.Clovermoss🍀(talk)18:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that with this specific decision, the EC was unable to comment due to our confidentiality agreements until after it was announced by the BoT. I will bring back to the next EC meeting that a comment from us afterwards would have been helpful.ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me!20:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, @Nadzik, @Mike Peel and @Laurentius folks on the board who I've interacted with in some limited capacity before, y'all might be able to provide better answers to some of the questions being asked here?Sohom (talk)17:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate you asking the tough questions, I think it's also good to keep in mind that this review was initially forced on by external factors. We should expect some amount of scuff and should not assume folks to be perfect due to the circumstances of the review and imply any kind of mishandling:Was this policy introduced as a result of the current Board attempting to justify why it would be removing these two candidates?, borders on assuming bad faith by being a loaded question.Sohom (talk)16:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People make those assumptions because they've been burnt badly in the past. There's a reason community-WMF relations can be quite tense in the first place, those attitudes don't just come out of nowhere. It makes it harder for people to give the benefit of the doubt in somewhat ambiguous situations and removing a popular candidate two days before the election is a very questionable decision even when trying to look at it in the best light possible. It adds fuel to the fire of people feeling like they don't have a true voice where it matters.Clovermoss🍀(talk)16:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this idea that anyone is "burned" is the rather hyperbolic response, that makes a mob. But there you have it.
I don't think it's hyperbolic to say that a lot of people have had cumulative experiences that result in them feeling distrustful in these sorts of situations. "Burned" is one of the easier adjectives to get that idea across. Once bitten, twice shy and all that. Except in my experience in talking with people, that resentment has built up over the course of years. I have more hope than some people do that if you try things can get better. People need to feel listened to to have that level of trust. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree that this is "standard stuff one would expect of board vetting".Clovermoss🍀(talk)01:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also posted the following at Village Pump (WMF): I've signed the petition. 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 tothe number of openfour 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)23:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I fully endorsed Lane in the election before they were removed... But we've also butted heads over COI a few times so I'm aware that they aren't a perfect candidate (but then again candidates/members never are). What confuses me is the training part, I don't see how it would be appropriate for the board to offer Lane that sort of leg up on other candidates, especially when they apparently consider them significantly enough lacking to remove them from the ballot in its entirety... So I want to know more about the training offered (who conducts it, what it costs, who pays for it, who has been offered it before, etc) and whether it would be offered to any Wikipedian who requested it. Does anyone have more information here?Horse Eye's Back (talk)15:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the COI stuff, it's normal to ask a board member to recuse from COIs after they've been elected but before they're official appointed. This is in general for any boards, not WMF specific. At which point Lane could either accept or refuse. Dismissing them before the election and not even giving them a shot is what is nuts.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}20:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah is confusing... We're left with supposed issues which are both significant enough to take someone off the ballot but also mitigable with a year or two of training? Thats what makes me wonder what we're talking about here... Intensive coaching for perspective board members is a thing, but as you say it generally happens after they've been selected.Horse Eye's Back (talk)20:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I view it as fundamentally contradictory to pull candidates from the ballot for disqualificatory issues while simultaneously making a blanket offer of training so they can qualify next time. I put this as politely as I couldhere at Meta. But what it looks like is that they're not serious issues, the Board just wants only candidates who have been pre-moulded.Yngvadottir (talk)19:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"While the candidates may choose to communicate more, we cannot comment on whether they have provided an accurate representation of our concerns as expressed." thats what I've been afraid of... Bluerasberry needs to share verbatim what was communicated to them and they need to do it now.Horse Eye's Back (talk)14:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can we trust the candidates if they don't share the communication? The Wikimedia foundation has a legitimate reason not to disclose the emails, the candidates do not unless I'm missing something.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, at least. I clicked on the link to see whether there was any way to make a protest vote. And found that the voting page does not look like the one in the FAQ and I can't get it to do anything. Any Signpost reporters want to confirm and publicize this? or figure out what technical requirements there are for a "voter" to "vote"?Yngvadottir (talk)04:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a signpost reporter but I think if the voter (signed into their account) goes to this page from herehttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates press "vote here", they get (after another click) to a secure poll page were you can drag or move the names from the unranked box to the ranked box, and press submit. Drag them over in the order you want them ranked, and it looks like you have to drag at least one into the ranked box from the unranked box to submit.Alanscottwalker (talk)10:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's done by dragging. The FAQ has an image of pulldowns. I didn't think of dragging; I tried clicking. (I'm not sure that is accessible to screenreader users; it certainly isn't accessible to those of us who don't use mobile UIs and are unaware of their conventions.) I confirmed what I'd thought, that there's no way to register a protest vote / spoiled ballot, so naturally I didn't vote. But thanks.Yngvadottir (talk)19:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yngvadottir: The petition I'll be starting later is probably the closest thing you can get to a protest ballot. Stay tuned. I've been trying to speedrun understanding a lot of board history in the past 3 days and talking to a lot of people so I understand enough to not mess it up, but I'm hoping that it can be the start of some real change.Clovermoss🍀(talk)19:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the entire rigmarole of lists, short lists, and final selection followed by a complex single transferable vote system even necessary? The BoT has become a classic example of self-perpetuating bureaucracy. With so few candidates, it's not a poll at all, its a rating system that ensures there cannot be any abstentions or tactical voting, and that the Board's own choice is assured.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)21:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage people to share their specific concerns about the current state of governance (historical concerns are also welcome!) on the talk page for the petition, as my voice is just one of many. I think this is a good time to amplify the visibility of voices within the community.Clovermoss🍀(talk)23:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we write on the talk pages of the remaining 2025 Board candidates asking them to take a position on the removal of the two candidates from the Election Shortlist. Current remaining candidates:
The criticism by Doronina (username on en.Wikipedia?) ofBluerasberry makes two claims.Firstly there's a claim that the expressionproposing to replace forthe June 2025 LLM summary proposal isgrossly unsupported. It could be argued thatproposing in Oct 2025 should rather beproposed and has temporarily suspended its proposal and thatreplace should rather bemake it very easy for readers to click andde facto replace, but that level of nuance is hard to put in a brief video statement. There's a big difference between "possibly not sufficiently nuanced but in a situation allowing only a few handfuls of sentences" versus"grossly unsupported".Secondly there's a jump from Bluerasberry promising more financial transparency for WMF to the allegation that he might disclose WMF financial information that is "non-public". The question here is who decides what is public or non-public, and whether it's justified to allege that Bluerasberry would not appropriately balance the commmunity's need to know versus privacy issues and legal risks. I don't think Doronina has the right to veto Bluerasberry on this account.Bluerasberry above mentions theSignpost and journalism as a main concern. I fail to see these as justifying the veto.Bluerasberry: I'm hoping youare a candidate next time around after coming to an agreement with the current Board, and that the Board's conditions are not too onerous (sign a secret Masonic oath?). Thanks to theStreisand effect, you should have a good chance.Boud (talk)01:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Boud, The WMF teamwas (note, not "is" which is a very different word) not "planning on replacing human text with AI", they were trying to "make articles simpler to understand" (for which they used AI summaries). The exact timeline of events that occurred is publicly documentedhere. This is not nuance, it's just wrong factually?Sohom (talk)02:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No? I think therecent image browsing proposals, and the nascent "Explore" namespace proposal also come from the same workstream of making articles more digestible. Also, this isn't a new thing invented to just shove AI, it came out of research done by teams in 2020 to identify areas where Wikipedia could see improvement (seeFile:The_Knowledge_Gaps_Taxonomy_V2.png, TLDR, a significant amount of readers come from background that do not have English as their first language) and to my understanding the WMF has been looking at ways to solve these since then.Sohom (talk)03:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm saying that most people would describe using AI as using AI, which inherently replaces human text by it's design. You can't say something is factually wrong when it's not.Clovermoss🍀(talk)03:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say someone (or a org) is "planning/proposing to do something" when they are not doing that. What you can say is "itfeels like the WMF was trying to replace human text with AI" (which is fine and I have expressed similar feeling in the past) which is a very different tone compared to Lane's statement which was a much more absolute/authoritative: "Please consider that right now, the Wikimedia Foundation is proposing to replace some of the text in Wikipedia articles from the content written by humans with content written by artificial intelligence". This is the equivalent of"The captain was sober all day". There is a ton of context missing here (which I have provided in this thread) to the point that the statement is just incorrect at worst, inflammatory at best.Sohom (talk)03:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At best, it was a simple misstep in phrasing. I do not think it's inflammatory to describe situations that have already happened and say you plan to prevent them from happening again.Clovermoss🍀(talk)03:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree about Lane, then. I can understand your argument that such a misstep in phrasing is crucial, but I don't think that sort of thing should disqualify a candidate, especially because voters could have alternative views on its meaning. In an ideal world, you clarify and try to figure it out. If there is no coming back from that for you on a personal level, so be it.
Lorenzo's email doesn't change anything for me, personally. We don't know what went into his vote, but the board vote was unanimous, and no one is publicly disagreeing with her interpretations. She explained why she voted the way she did so of course people are going to read into it. It's the only rationale from someone who voted to disqualify him that we have.Clovermoss🍀(talk)04:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrt to Lane, the TLDR is that I can see how thatcould be taken as a strike against in reputational risk land. I agree that it is probably not the whole picture in this context but I disagree with Boud's framing of "just nuance".
Wrt to Lorenzo's email, my understanding/reading of Lorenzo's email is that it is explicitly a disagreement with the framing of Victoria's explanation as "the board's view" which was my understanding/take-away until very recently.Sohom (talk)04:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think it's a disagreement to say that one person doesn't speak for the entire board when that's pretty much how that works. A disagreement would be explicitly stating that other board members voted to disqualify the candidates for reasons other than what Victoria expressed.Clovermoss🍀(talk)05:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly are you referring to by "you" and "all" in this message (which I understand you are issuing in your official capacity as one ofthe English Wikipedia's oversighters)? Appreciate some precision here, also regardingWP:ASPERSIONS.
And speaking as a Signpost team member who wasnot involved in writing, reviewing or publishing the item in question (and without discussing specific problematic details of the magazine article that was linked, per Doug's discouragement of doing so):
I hope that in futureOS appointments, attention is given to a candidate's ability to navigate the kind of tradeoffs described atWP:PROBLEMLINKS, and to avoid absolutist interpretations of policy that do little to actually protect editors' privacy. Whether we like it or not,Tablet andNational Review are widely read publications, and there is value for the community in being aware of what kind of viewpoints they push about our project - especially, as the Signpost story seemed to imply, they are likely to inform the current, unprecedented Congressional investigation regarding Wikipedia.
(PS re not involved: Since I appear in therevision history where attribution has now been lost due to the suppression by - presumably -Primefac, I'll state for the record that my edits were confined to two parts not at issue here, namely: 1) the brief item about the UK Online Safety Act ruling, and 2) the brief item "Solution offered", adding a link to the longer News and notes story about the same topic.)
I'm not sure how one would be able to quote an article and provide a summary of its content without linking to the article itself; it was only two paragraphs long.Primefac (talk)20:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones,Bri,HaeB, andJayen466: From what I gather, editors are not permitted to discuss OSed material on-wiki at all, so please check your email. Anybody else who would like to discuss this, I guess, send me an email as well.jp×g🗯️03:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here (without link, obviously) that this suppression got a Breitbart article, which also outs the editors.@Doug Weller: Would it be possible to write up a small report about this incident if we don't link the articles that out the editors?QuicoleJR (talk)18:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller,Primefac,David Eppstein, andJayen466: The removed SP article didn't mention the outed editor. What in the outing policy would cover, and what breadcrumbs would be left by, a written and unlinked description of the rest of that external press piece? Moreover, even the SPdid cover the outing, the SP covered similar issues in text without linksat leasttwice when I was EIC (admittedly long ago).Ed[talk][OMT]02:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PingingJayen466 - do you still intend to pick these up again at some point, or should we declarethis slot vacant and look for someone else to take it on? (I do think these mailing lists remain a valuable venue for bringing each new issue to the attention of additional readers.) Of course we are all volunteers here. Apropos, I should also confess that I didn't get to do the usual socials for the last issue (have been generally overestimating my time available for Signpost things in recent weeks), but I just posted the new one in the usual channels again.
Thanks. If I had to guess, I would say this is some issue with the API policy being restricted (e.g. all queries now require user agent headers). Currently I am reviewing articles for this issue so I do not know if there is time for a fix today. The code is athttps://github.com/jp-x-g/sinepost/ and I think that making it supply a user agent would be very simple, if anyone wants to make a pull request for it.jp×g🗯️23:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps at all, when I tried to access the website, I got the following error:
ReferenceError: /root/2023-aug-sinepost/sinepost/views/error.jade:4:: 2| :: 3| block content:: > 4| h1= message:: 5| h2= error.status:: 6| pre #{error.stack}:: 7| ::title is not defined:: at eval (eval at exports.compile (/root/2023-aug-sinepost/sinepost/node_modules/jade/lib/jade.js:171:8), <anonymous>:18:58):: at /root/2023-aug-sinepost/sinepost/node_modules/jade/lib/jade.js:172:35:: at exports.render (/root/2023-aug-sinepost/sinepost/node_modules/jade/lib/jade.js:206:14):: at exports.renderFile [as engine] (/root/2023-aug-sinepost/sinepost/node_modules/jade/lib/jade.js:233:13):: at View.render (/root/2023-aug-sinepost/sinepost/node_modules/express/lib/view.js:135:8):: at tryRender (/root/2023-aug-sinepost/sinepost/node_modules/express/lib/application.js:657:10):: at Function.render (/root/2023-aug-sinepost/sinepost/node_modules/express/lib/application.js:609:3):: at ServerResponse.render (/root/2023-aug-sinepost/sinepost/node_modules/express/lib/response.js:1039:7):: at /root/2023-aug-sinepost/sinepost/app.js:38:7:: at Layer.handle_error (/root/2023-aug-sinepost/sinepost/node_modules/express/lib/router/layer.js:71:5)
Yeah, it's failing to retrieve the page content from the wikipedia.org API. I think for the most part it boils down to the entire thing being an application I run off my own webserver, in addition to coding and maintaining it, and also maintaining all the onwiki code, and the budget for this is $0. The patch (modifying the application to send a user agent header) is pretty simple, but I do not have the time to write it, test it, and then also deploy it today.jp×g🗯️16:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
