translate

Dear Wikimedia Foundation and Board of Trustees,

My name is Hannah Clover. I have been an active Wikipedian for 7 years. In that time, I have made more than 35,000 edits, became an administrator on the English Wikipedia, and been the 2024 Wikimedian of the Year. Our goals as a movement – expanding open access to knowledge – is part of the very air I breathe. I’ve dedicated thousands of hours worth of volunteer labour to that end.

But my story isn’t by any means unique. Projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation function because countless people like me make it possible for them to do so. We’re the people that write articles, take photographs, create userscripts, revert vandalism, and pursue countless other activities that I could not even begin to summarize here. We care a lot about what we do and have valuable insights to share about that.

The recent removals of two candidates right before the election sparked a flame within me. I realized that I had never really been invested in these conversations before and I had a lot of questions. Why were there only six candidates (now four) for two positions? Why was there such a lack of transparency about why and how these decisions are made? So I did what I’mknown for – I talked to people.

I’ve learned a lot these past few days because of that. One recurring theme was the lack of communication, which should be proactive instead of reactive. Editors should not have to demand answers. We realize that there are limits to what can be shared when it comes to confidential information but unnecessary secrecy leads to suspicion and distrust. This lack of communication only escalates existing tensions and furthers the disconnect in community-WMF relations. So imagine my surprise to learn that board members are not currently allowed to do this! This engagement should be encouraged and not suppressed.

Which leads into another concern – that candidates be strongly unified. This stifles the Board of Trustees from reflecting the true diversity of our movement. Something I heard time and time again was that people felt like they did not have a voice, did not feel accurately represented, and did not even have the choice to vote for someone that they feel would make things better. That these elections weren’t even elections at all.

Another recurring theme was that this was a result of the Board’s structure as aboard-only organization. That change is limited becausefiduciary duties conflict with the interests of our communities. While we may not be stakeholders on paper, our interests should be heard. A possible solution to this is exploring the possibility of becoming a membership based organization. I realize that this is a tough pitch to make here and that there are complicated dynamics involved in such a decision that I do not fully understand. However, this was a very popular idea. I think the community deserves serious consideration and analysis of the benefits and risks of changing to this membership model, especially since there hasn’t been a discussion like that in 20+ years.

At the very least, the Board should recognize that there are certain risks to being self-perpetuating in nature, involve the community in its decision-making as much as possible, and provide minimal interference in elections. Trust lays the foundation for mutual understanding and allows the Board to better serve our needs.

We, the undersigned, are concerned that the way the Board currently operates does not truly reflect our values as a movement. But that does not make us your enemies. We are concerned because we care enough to want to work together to identify how to best change the status quo. Please engage with us so we can make that happen. We all have our own stories and concerns and deserve to be heard.

1. Clovermoss (talk)04:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Czarking0 (talk)04:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Soni (talk)04:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Rotana🦋 (talk)05:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. DarkGreenAndSunny (talk)06:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6. Chaotic Enby (talk)06:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yngvadottir (talk)06:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
8. —Femke 🐦 (talk)06:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
9. ltbdl (talk)07:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
10. VIGNERON *^discut.07:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
11. Kudpung (talk)09:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
12. WereSpielChequers (talk)09:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
13. Chinmayee Mishra (talk)10:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
14. Buidhe (talk)12:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
15. Kline (talk)12:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
16. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)12:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
17. Wbm1058 (talk)12:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
18. OwenBlacker (Talk; he/him)12:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
19. Matthewvetter (talk)13:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
20. ValerioBozz (talk)13:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
21. Fathoms Below (talk)13:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
22. —Fortunaimperatrix13:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
23. CNC (talk)14:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
24. Perfect4th (talk)14:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
25. ComplexRational (talk)15:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
26. Nemoralis (talk)15:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
27. JuxtaposedJacob (talk)15:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
28. Abade^Talk16:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
29. Launchballer (talk)16:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
30. The call for change is now. Don't drop it.--A09|(pogovor)17:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
31. Tazerdadog (talk)18:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
32. Ocaasi (talk)18:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
33. -19:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
34. DraconicDark (talk)20:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
35. Zblace (talk)21:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
36. Tryptofish (talk)23:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
37. Frankly, I think many of the WMF's actions don't represent our goal as a movement, unfortunately.Cremastra (talk)23:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
38. //shb(t •c)23:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
39. An "election" where someone preselects "acceptable" candidates is a sham.Seraphimblade (talk)00:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
40. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬)03:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
41. The WMF and its executives are willing to sacrifice the project and its cause to further their own self-interest.Thebiguglyalien (talk)06:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Thebiguglyalien: please remember to assume good faith here too. Improving community-WMF relations is a two-way street.—Femke 🐦 (talk)20:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    en:Paradox of toleranceMarcus Cyron (talk)21:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Good grief. This is about the governance of a website, not some oppressive regime. The WMF might be wrong, but they aren't vicious.Giraffer (talk)16:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thebiguglyalien did not ascribe motive, as some users seem to have done. Carelessness and relative competence are other explanations whichdo assume good faith.BusterD (talk)08:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

42. I just learnt about this new drama. Removal of two candidates just before the election is not acceptable. I think that the BoT election is meaningless now.Yann (talk)13:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
43. Polimerek (talk)13:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
44. Lots of recent activities from the board of trustees (beyond the current BoT election, e.g.Wikimedia Foundation Community Affairs Committee/Sister Projects Task Force) have been acting in similar manner such as the opaque selection process and acting as a supervote that overrides/ignores the community's consensus. Because of the repeated pattern, this is an indication that it's the board structure that needs reform and not just certain individuals that need to be recalled.OhanaUnited^{Talk page}14:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
45. * Pppery *_{it has begun}15:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
46. Bawolff (talk)16:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
47. Cryptic16:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
48. Nigel Ish (talk)19:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
49. Rutebega (talk)20:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
50. ~ ToBeFree (talk)22:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
51. Kowal2701 (talk)23:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
52. Abzeronow (talk)01:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
53. Rexogamer (talk)02:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
54. Cullen328 (talk)03:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
55. The increasingly arbitrary limitations from the Board remove the point of the "community- and affiliate-selected" seats, as the only people allowed to run for those seats are those selected by the Board.TE(æ)A,ea. (talk)04:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
56. Saroj (talk)05:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
57. I only became aware of any of this in the last 2 days, but there's certainly enough there to indicate that there's a problem that should be addressed and remedied. There are clearly problems with the process and with the board's communication with users. And if any of them think there aren't, the very fact that a large number of users disagree shows that there are.Ikan Kekek (talk)06:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
58. As many here, I feel the people who literally are the reason for this place's existence should get a larger say in its inner workings.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>06:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
59. XtexChooser (talk)06:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
60. Steven Sun (talk)07:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
61. Currently 122.57.215.218 on enwiki and enwikt~2025-28418-41 (talk)10:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
62. Salvio^giuliano12:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
63. --ɱ12:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
64. Phil Bridger (talk)12:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
65. —Alien 3
    3 313:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
66. --Jan Kameníček (talk)13:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
67. LightNightLights (talk)16:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
68. TrameOscure (talk)16:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
69. I can accept that there are circumstances that warrant prescreening of board candidates. But the communication around this process, and the public reasoning offered for it, leave a lot to be desired.Vanamonde93 (talk)17:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
70. --Hogü-456 (talk)20:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
71. -- not just the board. The whole WMF must renewed. Completely. It's a mess. --Marcus Cyron (talk)21:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
72. NaBUru38 (talk)01:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)][reply]
73. Slowking4 (talk)01:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
74. Plutus^💬🎃—Fortune favors the curious02:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
75. EggRoll97 (talk)05:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
76. The structure of the Foundation seems to be not fit for purpose.Kusma (talk)10:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
77. IllCom (talk)10:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
78. --Gigi Lamera (talk)12:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
79. —Matrix (_{user page}^{(@ commons)} -_talk?)13:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
80. Ternera (talk)13:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
81. Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)13:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
82. See also my related comments here:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/October 2025 update#Value of an election where candidates are vetted for unanimityZezen (talk)14:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
83. femboy_clen (But we got it yeah)14:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
84. Ferien(talk)15:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
85. RoySmith (talk)18:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
86. Doug Weller (talk)19:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
87. Far more thoughtful and hopeful than other reactions I've seen.Jim.henderson (talk)19:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
88. Consigned (talk)20:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
89. Bishonen (talk)21:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
90. Polomo (talk)23:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
91. Justiyaya (talk)03:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
92. Sapphaline (talk)09:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
93. Mgjertson (talk)17:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
94. Gaurav (talk)20:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
95. ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·contribs ·email ·w:en)23:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
96. This sort of seemingly arbitrary removal is absolutely unacceptable.~delta^{(talk •cont)}04:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
97. --Zache (talk)04:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
98. --Camelia (talk)08:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
99. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ ⸱💬 ⸱📋12:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100. Best Wishes,Lee Vilenski^{(talk •contribs)}18:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
101. Nighfidelity (talk)15:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
102. --AndreasJN46615:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
103. Ethn23 (talk)17:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
104. Removing candidates for having the wrong opinions is unacceptable for any elected body, and the lack of transparency on the matter is even worse. It has become evident that some sort of reform is needed.QuicoleJR (talk)18:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
105. There is much talk about diversity—about gender identity, nationality, neurodiversity...But real diversity is not just about holding workshops and making statements; it means ensuring participation in power from the very beginning. This includes respecting the decisions made by a diverse community. An electoral process in which candidates must be vetted by a kind of guardian council is structurally reminiscent of authoritarian systems, rather than democratic systems. It violates the dignity of a free person to have to vote in such a way. It's not usually my way to argue in such a direct way. I do understand the political pressures you're facing in the U.S. A. However, from my perspective, giving in to that pressure at the expense of the community sets a problematic precedent. It suggests a certain vulnerability to external influence, which can be difficult to recover from in the long run. --Yunkal (talk)18:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
106. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs)22:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
107. --Hurluberlue (talk)06:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
108. --Fractal-Dreamz✯13:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
109. The action of removing candidates based on difference of opinion before the community vote is an event that could undermine confidence in the fairness of the election process and the commitment to inclusive governance. It is important to ensure that the spirit of openness and inclusion is fully upheld throughout the electoral process and not merely treated as a procedural formality. --Emna (talk)17:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
110. i too was concerned some candidates were removed straight before electiona nd reason was unclear.Gryllida22:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
111. Mozucat (talk)23:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
112. This election is a sham election. If the WMF thinks that we, the editors of the Wikimedia projects, are a movement, then their behavior is inconsistent with the concept of a movement, which chooses its own leaders.Robert McClenon (talk)04:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
113. My trust in the Foundation has been severely undermined - if not wholly erased - by the choice of removing the two candidates. Either explicitly transition to a fully self-appointed Board, and save us from participating in a manipulated electoral process unworthy of the community, or allow for a fair process that involves who is actually writing and maintaining the projects, without whom the Foundation wouldn't even exist.Ripepette (talk)09:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
114. —⁠k6ka🍁 (Talk ·Contributions)16:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
115. My objection is to pruning (prescreening) the list, which makes the board self-perpetuating, rather than necessarily certain other actions, but I have enough common ground that I join the petition.--Wehwalt (talk)16:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
116. Ahmed Naji^Talk19:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
117. Slgrandson (talk)20:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
118. The board took an extreme and unprecedented step in removing candidates based on subjective criteria. I think such an antidemocratic action could theoretically be appropriate in an extreme situation, but nothing suggests we are in such a situation, not even the statements of the board (consider, for example, that they invited both disqualified candidates to run in future elections). So I am left with profound disappointment that the current board believes it's more important to be "strongly unified" than to respect the diversity and wisdom (imperfect though it is) of the volunteer community.Neil Shah-Quinn (talk)03:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
119. Tvpuppy (talk)03:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
120. Frood (talk)05:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
121. The latest incident in a decade-long BoT spiral.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)17:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
122. — Newslinger talk07:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
123. Opm581 (talk)08:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
124. Grnrchst (talk)13:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
125. Something needs to be done. If not anything else, then at least make clear that these 'elections' aren't truly elections.Janhrach (talk)15:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
126. I'm very late to the discussion, and I must admit I've never been fully familiar with how the BoT and other boards work: still, I'm very much worried about the shenanigans that happened in the ongoing elections. I understand that the WMF is going through turbulent times on several fronts, but asYunkal rightfully wrote above, community members should not pay the price of it just because of their personal record. In my view, the Trustees and the rest of the board should hold themselves to an especially high standard of transparency and empathy when it comes to sensible decision-making and preserving... well, theactual trust of the community, which is still the most valuable element of our movement. I'm afraid they've fallen pretty short of the standard in this particular occasion; however, I hope we can do better together in the future. --Oltrepier (talk)21:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
127. I likeOltrepier am not fully familar with how the board works. However, I do think some of the processes here have gone poorly. Removing candidates that late is really not good and the fact candidates have restrictions on engagement is unacceptable.GothicGolem29 (talk)04:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
128. I thought, after the disaster with James an Aarnon the board would have learned something, but obviously they are still far away from those, they are supposed to represent, the communities. The WMF has no value on it's own, it's just the representation body for the Wikiverse communities. They should go back to where they belong, a servant for the communities. Grüße vomSänger ♫^(Reden)10:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
129. SmolPetra (talk)13:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
130. Polygnotus (talk)03:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC) If they would've done their due diligence they would've already discovered the alleged social media posts of Ravan. And the reasons given for exclusion of Bluerasberry are invalid, as I notedhere.[reply]
131. I support this important petition.McDutchie (talk)04:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
132. I am actually find it confusing from the Movement Charter decision. I thought the WMF had rather changed and the community has the final say in things. But from these two decisions, I think the things rather sticked as the same like the times I joined 21 years ago. Something has to be changed. ※ JY Chan ~ User:Yuyu ※ talk page ※ 08:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
133. BusterD (talk)08:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
134. The governing body of the WMF needs to be democratic in character. No kings, no central commitees!-<(kmk)>- (talk)19:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
135. Per what most of us here are saying (and after taking time to review how it came to this -thanks, Signpost), although I wish the 4 other Board candidates well. It's only been a year sincethis happened, and ever since, things around the world have been, to be mildly put, irksome. Also, as far as the reasons given are concerned, why do I get the feeling that Disney, Paramount andIndiana University said the same thing?2601AC47 (talk)23:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     By the way, I support in some manner of amending the bylawssimilar to Doc James' version that can be to the betterment of both the WMF and us; failing that - maybe even abeloved land shark can do the kind of operose work that the incumbent Board trustees, respectfully, have barely achieved for us besides chasing shadows gone loose - a community-driven overhaul would be considered (orhave Arbitrators elected like this for that).2601AC47 (talk)14:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

136. Silver Dovelet (talk)02:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
137. Scope creep (talk)18:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
138. UpTheOctave! • 8^va?18:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
139. Voyager640 (talk)10:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
140. Michaelgraaf (talk)12:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
141. AkaruiHikari (talk)15:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
142. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬)16:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
143. Sometimes, the board has to make tough decisions in times of crisis in order to preserve long-term trust and ward off dangers to the movement. Unfortunately, the board's current course of action is headed in the complete opposite direction, preemptively capitulating to external political pressures precisely when the Foundation needs to stand strong on freedom of expression and avoid fracturing the community.Coolclawcat (talk)05:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
144. (One Gross, if I may use the expression.) I'm sure most of what happens is really great, but this was not. And it's not the first time or even the eleventh that the WMF in some guise has managed to rile up the community. As usual, good intentions pave the road to Hell, but really can't we avoid these situations somehow?Rich Farmbrough.23:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
145. Bobby Cohn (talk)01:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited toshare your own story, thoughts, or reflections too! Let's show the WMF the diversity of our editing community!

• Objections to the 2025 WMF Board election removals
• Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/October 2025 update

• Petitions to the Wikimedia Foundation
• Board elections