Conflict of Interest note – Some of these events directly relate to The Signpost. The writers and editors of The Signpost did not consult or confer with anyone named in this timeline in writing this piece.

Earlier this month, the WMF Board made an unprecedented decision to disqualify two candidates for the Board, just days before the start of the community voting period. Naturally, that led to significant controversy, including protests and boycotts. This article covers the timeline of events leading up to this.

This issue's Interview section features interviews with the two disqualified candidates (Lane and Ravan), as well as WMF Board members Maciej Nadzikiewicz and Lorenzo Losa.

The Board of Trustees (BoT) is the governing body for the Wikimedia Foundation, and oversees high-level decisions, such as appointing the CEO or approving the WMF annual plan. The Board currently has twelve members, five of which are appointed by the Board itself, "for their subject matter expertise". One seat is reserved for Jimbo Wales, while six Board seats are "elected" by the community.

Historically, two of the six elected seats were chosen by Wikimedia Affiliates. Since the 2022 vote, the two processes have been combined in a Community-and-Affiliates selection process. In 2022 and 2024, this process involved Affiliates shortlisting candidates (if necessary for keeping the number of candidates below a limit), followed by a final community vote.

The results of the community process, while described as "elections", are officially considered non-binding recommendations, with the Board itself having final say. (See the 2006 Wikimedia Foundation membership controversy for historical background.) Generally, the Board or WMF has not interfered in this community voting, with the closest example being the removal of James Heilman from the Board during the WMF scandals of 2016.

Until 2020, the community voting process had also been enshrined in the Foundation's bylaws, along with a requirement that these community- and affiliate-selected seats had to make up the "majority of the Board Trustee positions, without counting the Community Founder Trustee position." In December of that year, the Board enacted changes to the bylaws which removed this majority requirement, and changed the references to "community voting" and "a process determined by Affiliates collectively" into a more vague requirement for a "Community and/or Affiliate nomination process".

These bylaw changes generated considerable community debate when they were first presented in draft form (Signpost coverage). Among those who voiced concerns was none other than Jimmy Wales (Signpost coverage: "WMF Board considering the removal of Jimmy Wales' trustee position amid controversy over future of community elections"), who stated that "I will personally only support a final revision which explicitly includes community voting". Wales observed at the time that –

In the past few years, there have been several crises that have made it increasingly clear to me: the biggest problem on the board is not a lack of professional expertise, but rather a lack of community representation and control. [...]

I am deeply concerned about the tone of some of the latest [as of November 2020] proposals from some quarters: a reluctance to be firmly clear that community control – in the form of voting and not just some vague "community-sourced board members" language that might mean anything or nothing – is not negotiable.

In the end, though, the changes were approved unanimously, and the 2020 version of the bylaws remains in place today. However, perhaps because of the controversies at the time, a system of large-scale community voting remained in place where WMF did not exert major influence on the slate of candidates being voted on (unlike the affiliate organizations, who now determine the aforementioned candidate shortlist).

The 2025 WMF BoT election process started in May 2025. The elections were called to replace two outgoing trustees, Mike Peel and Shani Evenstein Sigalov. Out of seventeen applicants, twelve were deemed eligible. In the shortlisting process, Affiliates selected six of those candidates for final voting.

On 10 August, The Jerusalem Post published an article about Ravan al-Taie, an Iraqi woman and one of the six shortlisted candidates, titled "Wikimedia Foundation trustee candidate denies use of rape on Oct. 7, posts Hamas symbol" (See below for Ravan's defence). It also mentioned that Ravan, a member of multiple Wikimedia movement committees and affiliates, was being described as an "anti-Israeli candidate" by "knowledge expert Dr. Shlomit Aharoni Lir" (the author of a controversial 2024 report titled "The Bias Against Israel on Wikipedia", see Signpost coverage). The story was picked up by a couple of conservative news outlets, the Washington Examiner on 20 August 2025 and the Jewish News Syndicate on 3 September 2025.

On 21 August, days after the news story, the Board's Governance Committee and the Elections Committee announced a change, stating that "the background checks and media checks and Governance Committee interviews for all six shortlisted candidates" would be conducted "now rather than after the close of the vote". This involved moving the start of the voting period from August 27 to October 7.

The Governance Committee consists of three trustees: Shani Evenstein Sigalov and Lorenzo Losa (two community- and affiliate-selected Board members), and Raju Narisetti (board-appointed). Narisetti had joined the Governance Committee earlier this year, taking over the committee chair position from outgoing community- and affiliate-selected trustee Dariusz Jemielniak, who had been chairing the committee and its predecessor since 2021.

The announcement was quickly followed by an FAQ. This stated, among other things:

What kinds of issues may disqualify a candidate from being seated and what might be announced if a candidate is disqualified?

[...] The checks will determine legal requirements, the ability of a candidate to fulfill the duties of a Trustee, as well as a determination of temperament, judgment, and discretion that comes from the Governance Committee interview and the information collected in the media and background checks. This process has been in place for several years and is regularly evaluated to ensure it meets the needs of the Board. [...]

If any candidate is disqualified through this process, will one of the six non-shortlisted candidates be brought in as a finalist?

No, we will not go back to the non-shortlisted candidates and add any to this process. We are changing only the timing of when the background and media checks are run to determine if each candidate can be seated before voting takes place, given the organisation's increased visibility and potential higher risks to individuals. [...]

On 1 October, the Board voted in a brand new Candidate Review Process, which was shared publicly the same day. Its preamble stresses the authority of the Governance Committee:

The Governance Committee decides when a candidate is suitable for the full Board to consider to be appointed as a Trustee. The Governance Committee bases its decisions on information it obtains from background checks, media checks, legal assessments, interviews, and reference checks.

The section on "Background checks, media checks, and legal assessments" includes –

Questions for Legal to consider:

• [...]
• Did the checks reveal any behavior that could be seen as violating the Board’s code of conduct or the Universal Code of Conduct?
• Did the checks reveal any relationships that may create a conflict of interest for the candidate?
• Did the checks reveal any information that suggests the candidate would create reputational, financial, operational, or other types of risk for the Foundation if they were appointed as a Trustee?

On 3 October 2025, less than two days after the resolution was passed (and five days before the community vote was due to start), WMF Board chair Nataliia Tymkiv announced on the Wikimedia-l mailing list (also copied on Meta-Wiki) that –

the Board has unanimously decided that four candidates will be on the ballot for the 2025 elections: Bobby Shabangu, James Alexander, Michał Buczyński, and Wojciech Pędzich.

That meant that two candidates – neither of them mentioned by name in Nataliia's statement – had been quietly dropped from the group of six that had made it through the affiliate shortlisting process:

• Ravan Al-Taie, the Iraqi Wikimedian who had been the subject of the above mentioned Jerusalem Post article and who in 2015 was one of three Wikipedians joining Jimmy Wales, then-CEO Lila Tretikov and then-Board chair Patricio Lorente to receive the Princess of Asturias Award for International Cooperation at a ceremony presided over by the King and Queen of Spain (Signpost coverage);
• Lane Rasberry, a data scientist and Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Virginia School of Data Science as well as a longstanding contributor to The Signpost who has authored or appeared as an interviewee in many scholarly and media publications about Wikipedia.

On 3 October, Lane shared his perspective in a post on English Wikipedia, commenting:

I asked the WMF to share the reasons why they are taking me off the ballot. [...] I consent to any disclosure because saying anything is better and safer for me than the ambiguity.

The WMF invites [me] to join the election as a candidate [..] in two years. [The Board cited] 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.

Within the next few days, the Meta-Wiki page Objections to the 2025 WMF Board election removals was created. Several petitions in that subpage have expressed support for one or both candidates, with over 200 individuals and 20 movement bodies signing. Many of the signatories also committed to boycotting the election process entirely. Over 100 editors also signed a separate general petition for reform, started by Clovermoss.

On 9 October, Board member Victoria Doronina outlined her thinking (copied and discussed on Meta-Wiki). Writing "as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information", she outlined her reasons why "I cannot support [the] candidacy" of Ravan and Lane.

The informal nature of these comments was a departure from prior Board communications, causing BoT member Lorenzo Losa to further clarify that her "email was not sent in any official capacity".

On 11 October, Ravan shared a defense of herself on Meta-Wiki, written by several contributors. Salient comments included:

Ravan has unfortunately faced significant online harassment following the publication of an article that distorted her words and misrepresented Arabic expressions through poor translation. [...]

[S]ome members of the Board of Trustees, including Victoria, may have relied on this biased and inaccurate article in forming their views or actions.

On 14 October, Ravan lodged a formal Universal Code of Conduct complaint against Victoria, claiming breach of confidentiality and "defamation of [her] personal and professional reputation". As of October 19, the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) was still deliberating the acceptance of the complaint, with four committee members having voted "decline" so far and none "accept".

Since the initial announcement, some BoT members have commented on these events. They include –

• A post on Meta-Wiki from Board Chair Nataliia Tymkiv, titled "More answers on the Board's decision on the 2025 final ballot" on 7 October
• A further clarification, titled "Additional perspectives on current and future board selection processes" by Board Chair-Elect Lorenzo Losa on 15 October
• An interview in this issue of The Signpost with BoT members Maciej Nadzikiewicz and Lorenzo Losa

Several former Board members and veteran users spoke up on behalf of the removed candidates, or in favor of reforms. Samuel Klein, on English Wikipedia, noted:

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.

Christophe Henner, speaking on the mailing list, noted:

It is long past time we acknowledge that we have built a system with two centers of power, the Foundation and the communities, that do not share that power. This permanent imbalance creates constant tension, wastes time and energy, and ultimately weakens our entire movement.

James Heilman, speaking on the mailing list, commented:

As a trustee who was partly removed 10 years ago for pushing for greater transparency around the proposed Knowledge Engine it concerns me to see a candidate within the election being removed by the board in part for speaking up for transparency. I believe we need an independent group of elected community members, who have signed non-disclosure agreements, and are provided details by the WMF legal team and trust and safety, to oversee who is and is not eligible to stand for election. We can have community elections if we demand them.

Wikimedia Deutschland, the second-largest movement organisation after the WMF, suggested:

To collectively find ways of addressing the issues surfaced in this process, we invite the current BoT to consider the following steps:

• Engage in discussions with Movement stakeholders to find ways of ensuring more diversity on the BoT and within the candidates (e.g by addressing the questions raised in this petition for reform). Possibly propose amendments to the current selection process (e.g. introduce quotas, rethink the self-nomination process for candidates etc…).
• Discuss ways of better educating the affiliates and communities about our internal governance situation, including the self-perpetuating nature of the Board and the reasons for it.
• Review the language used in official communication about the “Board election” to use more accurate language (e.g. “Board selection process”, “community consultation”). This would contribute to a better understanding of our governance model.
• Review the timeline of the newly introduced process to make sure the vetting process happens as soon as possible, and definitely before the affiliates shortlisting process.

The voting process has continued without any changes. Voting is currently ongoing, and will be open until 22 October. None of the four remaining candidates have yet spoken on the recent turn of events.

User:The Land and User:Risker have observed that despite the boycott calls, current vote participation is roughly keeping pace with prior years. As there is no way to submit an "empty ballot", some editors have taken to Meta-Wiki to request invalidating their votes.

The Board of Trustees and Governance Committee currently welcome "specific proposals and ideas for reform" on the respective Meta-Wiki page, but it is unclear whether the BoT will consider any such proposals. Some Wikimedians discussed the BoT's rejection of the Movement Charter as evidence to the contrary.

What should be clear going forward is that describing the current "Community and/or Affiliate nomination process" as "Board elections" in movement communications is inaccurate.

Clearly, something needs to change – whether it's the community's expectations of free and fair elections, or the not-election process itself.