Earlier this month, the Wikimedia Foundation that owns Wikipedia rejected candidates in community elections for its Board of Trustees, sparking a community revolt. One rejected candidate was Iraqi national Ravan Jaafar Al-Taie, who made numerous anti-Israeli posts. After community-elected board member Victoria Doronina publicly linked the posts to the rejection, Al-Taie filed a conduct complaint against Doronina, who later apologized and announced she was suspending most board activities until the end of the year.
Further controversy erupted over a dispute between the Foundation CEO and a member of the community at a Wikipedia conference discussion regarding the election controversy, which led to the CEO apologizing for her conduct, noting her emotional state was affected by a gunman who rushed the stage at the conference the previous day.
The Wikimedia Foundation is governed by a board where roughly half of its members are elected from within the community of contributors to Wikipedia and its affiliated sites. Just prior to the commencement of the voting period for this year’s elections, Board Chair Nataliia Tymkiv announced two candidates out of six were rejected as part of its vetting process: Lane Rasberry and Al-Taie. This was in addition to candidates who were already rejected during a short-listing process. Outcry from the community immediately followed with open letters and a petition for board reform altogether signed by hundreds of contributors, many calling for an election boycott if rejected candidates were not reinstated.
Rasberry was purportedly rejected mainly over concerns regarding his involvement with the Signpost community newsletter, while Al-Taie’s candidacy was allegedly rejected over social media comments she made regarding the war in Gaza that had been covered in the Jerusalem Post and other news outlets. While Rasberry openly discussed his rejection in an announcement at the discussion page for the Signpost, Al-Taie initially declined to comment. However, in a mailing list discussion about the board reform petition, Doronina commented to identify concerns with the rejected candidates, speaking in her personal capacity.
Al-Taie’s social media activity was specifically identified as a concern by Doronina, who suggested it could negatively impact the Foundation’s reputation. Rasberry’s involvement with the Signpost was also identified as a concern in conjunction with his calls for greater transparency, which Doronina suggested could imply disclosing confidential information. Several people disputed the accuracy and validity of Doronina’s concerns. Al-Taie responded shortly after Doronina’s mailing list comments with a rebuttal to the allegations about her social media posts and further criticized Doronina for relying “on a biased and mistranslated media article” in her decisions, expressing her “deep disappointment” with the board over her rejection.
Conduct Complaint
Al-Taie then submitted a complaint to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) charged with enforcing a code of conduct imposed by the Foundation. The committee’s voting members are elected by the community, though members of the Foundation’s legal team serve on the committee as non-voting members. In the complaint, Al-Taie stated Doronina’s message shared “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.” She stated it also “includes false and harmful claims” such as stating she was offered to “withdraw with grace” as Al-Taie contends this did not occur.
Going further, Al-Taie stated she had agreed with Foundation leadership to “remain silent in order to protect the Foundation’s reputation and avoid unnecessary controversy.” She argued Doronina’s comments created “reputational harm both to me personally and to the Foundation.” Al-Taie also claimed Doronina’s stating her social media activity posed reputational harm was “defamatory and discriminatory.” Claiming her comments “consistently focused on advocating for empathy and calling for an end to violence in Gaza” she stated Doronina’s message “implicitly portrays the Foundation as aligning with biased or politically motivated narratives, which undermines its neutrality and commitment to freedom of expression.”
Noting the code of conduct’s section on harassment, Al-Taie stated Doronina’s e-mail constituted “insults, slurs, or stereotypes” and “attacks based on personal characteristics or political affiliation.” Al-Taie claimed the message had caused significant harm as many community members thanked Doronina for the clarification on Al-Taie’s rejection thus “reinforcing false narratives and spreading misinformation.” She was thus “compelled to respond publicly to correct these inaccuracies, despite my initial intention to remain silent.” Citing Doronina’s comments as constituting a breach of confidentiality and defamation, among other alleged misconduct, Al-Taie requested a formal investigation “with appropriate measures taken to address the breach of confidentiality and defamation.”
Response from community members generally supported Al-Taie’s complaint with several particularly objecting to Doronina stating the potential damage to the Foundation’s reputation was greater than to “gender equity” in excluding the only female board candidate. U4C member “Ghilt” suggested most of Al-Taie’s concerns would be the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees instead and questioned what Doronina said regarding her social media activity beyond what was reported in the press. Al-Taie asked where else she could raise her complaint and stated it was not the “press coverage of an extremist right-wing pro genocidal press” that concerned her, but claims about her candidacy harming the Foundation’s reputation.
Members of the U4C generally agreed that the committee lacked jurisdiction and that it was instead a matter for the Board of Trustees to decide, noting the committee was not authorized to act when there was another viable procedure. Committee members encouraged Al-Taie to use the complaints procedure for the Board of Trustees under its code of conduct. Despite declining, members of the U4C were sympathetic to Al-Taie and expressed concern about the board rejections, but held that Doronina’s comment were not within their purview. One committee member argued that even if they had jurisdiction, the comments would not have violated the code of conduct.
Board Member Apology and Suspension
Doronina did not respond directly, but on October 21 she posted an apology over her previous remarks. Stating she made the comments in the interest of transparency, she noted previously doing so last year regarding a Movement Charter the Board of Trustees rejected after a community vote endorsed it, which followed a years-long effort. Doronina then expressed concern about the charter’s proposed “Global Council” elected by contributors to Wikipedia-affiliated sites potentially taking too much power away from the Foundation. Concerns regarding the council were raised officially by the Foundation during discussion about the charter and informed the rejection decision. Al-Taie was on the committee that drafted the charter.
Acknowledging the difference between that situation and the situation regarding the rejection of board candidates was that the latter decision was about people, Doronina apologized by stating “people don’t deserve to be drawn attention to in ways that can cause harm.” She noted the board’s code of conduct requires coordinating public comments on decisions, which she had not done in this case. Apologizing to Al-Taie and Rasberry “for any harm I may have caused them as people” Doronina stated her public apology would be followed by personal apologies to both.
Further apologizing to any negatively-affected community members, the other board members, and Foundation staff, Doronina announced she had decided to suspend herself from most board activities until the end of the year. Reaction to her decision was mixed with some accepting her apology and suspension, others stating she did not need to suspend herself, and one person demanding Doronina resign over the matter. A U4C member subsequently noted Doronina’s apology and another declined the case stating Doronina’s “apology message suggests she understands the issue and is taking steps to mitigate it, which is a positive development compared to how things were.” The case was consequently closed as declined.
Wikipedia Conference Confrontation
Wikimedia Chief Executive Officer Maryana Iskander also faced criticism over her response to community outcry. She was questioned about the election at a WikiConference North America discussion involving board members. According to one participant’s description of events, no community-elected board members participated, which denied the community the ability to question their board representatives about their decision on the rejections. After one board member mentioned her positive experience serving along union representatives on Deutsche Bank’s board, the participant questioned why this would not then encourage freer community elections. Iskander purportedly responded to this by stating she “found community-nominated Board members to be at odds with appointed ones.”
Hannah Clover, an admin who edits as “Clovermoss” and initiated a board reform petition following the candidate rejections, challenged Iskander’s remarks only to be reportedly told “one could not question her decision-making until they served as CEO of such a large organization.” The participant describing the exchange criticized Iskander’s dismissive attitude, noting Clover was recognized as 2024’s “Wikimedian of the Year” for her site contributions. Others defended Iskander as reacting emotionally in the moment, one noting she was on stage during the conference opening ceremony when an armed man rushed up and threatened to kill himself. Clover acknowledged the emotionally-fraught climate, while noting she was also present during the incident.
On her personal discussion page on Wikipedia, Clover spoke of being upset about her treatment and subsequently requested Iskander apologize publicly, noting she heard Iskander regretted her actions. Clover stated Iskander’s remarks made her feel Foundation leadership was not listening to contributors when those same contributors were the “only reason any of this is possible in the first place.” Iskander later responded to convey her apologies, noting the gunman incident had left her strained yet this did not excuse her conduct. Regarding comments she made about board cohesion, Iskander stated that she was discussing how the board needs to be able to come to agreement despite differences.
Further Election Responses
The Signpost also published interviews with the rejected board candidates and two sitting board members. Rasberry and Al-Taie reiterated their objections, while noting the board requested they not comment publicly on specifics. Board members Maciej Nadzikiewicz and Lorenzo Losa responded together, reiterating prior board defenses and insisting on confidentiality. Acknowledging the board selection process was not ideal, they stated the board is “continuously reviewing it and attempting improvements” and was monitoring and engaging in discussion with the community. They supported gathering interested parties “to propose reforms that will work for all stakeholders, and take into account some of the external pressures we are facing at the same time.”
While interference in the board election process has prompted considerable outcry, it did not appear to have a significant impact on the election despite calls for boycotts according to analyses by Chris Keating and Anne Clin, who edits as “Risker” on Wikipedia. Both indicated that voting numbers halfway through the election period, which ended October 22, showed participation in the election was roughly keeping pace with prior elections. One individual suggested the lack of impact may have been due to a more aggressive campaign by the Foundation to promote the board elections.
Increasing Pressure
Both Wikipedia and its owners face increasing internal and external pressure. Last week, a member of the Arbitration Committee, likened to a Supreme Court, breached a non-disclosure agreement to allege the Foundation knew about the WikiConference gunman and failed to act, endangering attendees. Meanwhile, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger unveiled a site reform proposal in an interview with commentator Tucker Carlson regarding its bias and is planning an open letter among those defamed and mistreated by Wikipedia. The House and Senate, along with the U.S. Attorney’s D.C. office, have also launched inquiries as Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk launches a site competitor using his Grok AI platform.
T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias.
Read the full article here