Talk:Affiliations Committee/Brazil Next Steps

Questions from Teles edit

Hi! Thanks for starting this page. I see it may be a good point to clarify many questions that I have. I will mention sentences of the main page to be clear on the context.

On mediation and de-recognition warning edit

  • "Both groups went through a rigorous mediation process and were given ample warning in advance that derecognition was possible." - I have never been aware of the possibility of the de-recognition. Could you clarify how this "ample" warning was sent? Was it by email? For what addresses? I tried to find the term "de-recognition" on my mailbox and can only find reference to the thread opened on wikimedia-l informing others about the already defined de-recognition of my group and other groups' de-recognitions unrelated with this topic. Actually, it was quite a surprise to me and other members, as we were having progress in a recently started attempt of mediation. However, as we can see on this thread, there was a problem of communication in the middle of the process and AffCom/WMF/I-dont-know-who wouldn't follow what was being talked.

I also am not aware of any rigorous mediation process. I am aware of a few mail exchanges between Maor and Chico. I may be failing on that, but I would like to have a clarification on what you mean by "rigorous mediation process". I don't know whether this mediation didn't really happen or I wasn't informed about it.

I have many mails I exchanged with SuSa concerning with the attempt to bring my point of view of related issues and expecting any advice from them. Keeping all respect I have from the SuSa members as they are composed by very professional and capable staff, I was frustrated for not receiving any final decision about most of it and after months of almost begging for a resolution while being insulted and harassed elsewhere, I just let that go for not having time and patience. However, I did never receive a word from AffCom about the de-recognition until it had been set. Once in a while, I received messages from Chico Venancio when, for instance, trying to set a conversation with Affcom (which I said I would join but was never arranged), when informing AffCom and WMF we were about to finnish our code of conduct or when it was requested a group response from Affcom or WMF for any other reason, but also never anything related with the de-recognition. We were building our own code of conduct, we were aware of our own flaws and trying to think about ways of avoiding trouble. I respectfully disagree of the summary provided on the main page, that disregards any attempt from our group to abide to WMF rules, which is not what happened.

Please, let me be clear that I assume good faith of AffCom and anybody involved. I am willing to be pointed out my own mistakes (I am fine with full disclosure) and my group's mistakes in order to both have a better understanding of what happened and being able to avoid any possible problem, but I also see a few mistakes from the mediation attempt (or the lack of it) that was also part of the whole situation. Thanks again to promote this discussion.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 21:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to add that my goodwill mediation (and the only occasion when the both sides were talking with each other) was actually actively obstructed by [a part of] WMF (intentionally) and AffCom (because of incompetence). --Millosh (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On verbal attacks in events edit

  • "verbal attacks on Wikimedia events" - When? Where? Which event? On the many debatable thrown allegations on the main page, most of them I agree that was done by the other group, I see phrases like this I can separate and bring here that is easier to dispute. On my group’s part, it’s difficult to accept this case as it is presented. We may have been responsible for a few misconducts we are willing to acknowledge and take responsibility for. However, you are throwing all accusations together as if every actions of both groups are equally wrong, which is highly unlikely to happen and be identified by a more accurate mediation process, so here is another example of AffCom’s failure.

I asked on my group chat if anyone was involved in any verbal attack on a Wikimedia event and nobody could recall ever doing it. Could you please at least mention who performed those attacks, when and where? I wonder if we are not being mistaken with another group or something. We would have remembered of doing things like this. I would be very disappointed with any member of my group had one of them done that. Even though we cannot remember a single attack on a single event, you used plural to mention this.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Teles, I was present at one of these instances, at Iberoconf 2017. I cannot present more details for confidentiality reasons. --Maor X (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you tell to the persons involved and the contact members of the group what happened? Nobody from the group will ever know what was decided? At least which users from my group is involved?—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 19:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maor X was this reported to WMF Trust and Safety, to the conference organizers and to other members of Affcom? I find it strange to have a cryptic, serious accusation being levied more than a year after the fact. And with no details, "for confidentiality reasons".
Confidentiality of reports of harassment are a very important part of creating a safe environment to the movement. What you are denouncing here is a different thing however, you witnessed a violation of the code of conduct for affiliates and of the friendly space policy but decided to keep quiet about it? Why was this never mentioned in any Affcom communication since the event? Chico Venancio (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harassment and conflicting groups edit

  • On the event of two groups formed on the same country and one of its member decide to harass another, what are the measures that can be taken by AffCom? Expect that they will solve by themselves or none of them can keep working as a group? What if a random person decides to harass a group member? Would you expect the group member to calmly talk to this person while being insulted and if not would you understand the group can’t exist anymore?
  • In my case, I was harassed by a member of another group with harsh words and personal attacks on a public space and all that AffCom did was suggesting to set up a hangout with me and the harasser. I was surprised to know that I was forced to be on the same place of my harasser, otherwise they would consider that I don’t want to work on the conflict. That’s absurd for anyone that knows the basics of harassment and conflict management. Don’t force the victim to talk with the harasser, otherwise you may repeat the violence or treat both behaviors as equal. Obviously, I didn’t agree, and asked SuSa to come up with a solution. Probably, that’s why this page was created, but I am here writing by myself with no answer. If that was supposed to be a live conversation, why are you quiet?—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 19:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brazil Catalyst Project edit

@Maor X: Following your affirmation that the conflict can be traced especially to "unresolved issues during the implementation of the Brazil Catalyst Project", and trying to understand what that project was, as I was not closely following Wikipedia at the time, I couldn't find any detailed reports, let alone anything mentioning any costs or funds, people in charge, etc. about that project. Are those reports publicly available? Would it be possible to have some information & context about that, so that who is looking from outside can have some idea on how things developed, so that lessons and useful knowledge can be taken from it?--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DarwIn: I am not Maor X but reports are here: Programa Catalisador do BrasilNickK (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello NickK. Thanks for pointing that. I know the reports are there - However, as far as I know there is nothing on those reports that would suggest "unresolved issues during the implementation of the Brazil Catalyst Project", as mentioned by Maor X, that's why I asked for context. Financial reports seem to be notoriously missing, as well as some kind of report that would explain what happened to the program. Instead, they seem to suddenly stop in March 2014. After that, the whole thing seems to have silenced. And now Maor talking about "unresolved issues" that were the culprit of the whole disaster in Brazil - That's quite intriguing, and I think some clarification would be in place.--- Darwin Ahoy! 17:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DarwIn: I think that Brazil Program/Reports/Ação Educativa's grant - Final report is what you may be looking for. There is a financial report there, and the programme basically stopped in 2014. One of the relevant unresolved issues should be Many times, we've failed to produce a healthy and smooth communications process between the catalyst project team, which limited common and shared learnings, The Brazilian community is extremely reluctant on external interventionism and projects and Challenges tend to be more structural, organizational and regarding working and planning together. These points seem to be relevant to what you call a disaster in Brazil — NickK (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NickK: Thanks, I didn't knew that report existed, as it wasn't linked on the report list - or from anywhere else on the Catalyst Project page. It's indeed what I was looking for. It has a lot of issues, as the rest of that program. For starters, it fails to even acknowledge the existence of communities from different countries interacting in the Portuguese Wikipedia project - most notoriously from Portugal - and seems to assume it's just a Brazilian thing. So, when they talk about "the Brazilian community", what they seem to be referring to is the Portuguese Wikipedia community, which is a very different thing. And that misunderstanding/confusion is very evident trough the whole report, as well as the program itself. At that time, as now, there were Brazilians that only participated in Commons, for instance - while a significant part of the Portuguese Wikipedia community is from other countries. I also fail to understand what Brazilian Wikimedians have to do with - if I well understood - the people WMF hired to be part of the "catalyst project team" - the one they say communications failed. I still do not understand what ""unresolved issues during the implementation of the Brazil Catalyst Project"" - apparently something the WMF can only blame on itself - has to do with the fellow Wikimedians I know very well for many years, and whose Group was suddenly smashed by the AffCom & the WMF. I do not see their names on that catalyst team. Can you please clarify?--- Darwin Ahoy! 18:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, I also noticed the "Detailed expenses" field at the Financial Report is missing till today: We only have sums of money with quite vague designations, which is quite unexpected, especially for a program that was being implemented as an experiment or pilot. Do you know if those details are available somewhere?--- Darwin Ahoy! 19:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DarwIn: Just to clarify: I am definitely not the most informed person, I just know some people from both sides, worked with both groups at some point and tried to understand the problem. As far as I know, when the Catalyst programme was launched it was decided that there will be some coordination and joint work between Wikimedia Brazil and Wikimedia Foundation, which was approved in Proposed letter of agreement between Wikimedia Foundation and Brazilian volunteers. To my best knowledge, things did not really work that way, which is probably the major unresolved issue during the implementation of the programme. At this point my understanding can become completely wrong, but it seems to me that Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil emerged from Wikimedia Brazil which was ultimately not recognised by WMF, and Wiki Education Brazil emerged from Catalyst programme which was ultimately stopped by WMF. This means Brazil had two user groups with exactly the same status, and, as far as I understand, these groups did not really work together (I don't know if they wanted to work together or not). Once again, I am sorry if I am wrong, I think there should be more informed people than I who probably know more. I just shared the limited amount of information I know — NickK (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much NickK, the links you provided, and your insight, were extremely helpful. I must say I'm absolutely startled how half a million dollar of WMF donors money (only counting what can be publicly seen, after it transitioned into a grant) was thrown away into a 2 year program that was seriously flawed by design, apparently taking the Portuguese Wikipedia community for a "Brazilian community", and one they could easily reach from outside; a program that was riddled with unhealthiness and lack of communication among its own team (on their own words); which managed to gather a significant & severe resistance and rejection from the very community it was supposed to help. In the end, it seems to have had, at best, a residual and temporary impact on the projects. On the other hand, that project is still being used as a justification for how things are going bad today, with a lot of different players on the scene, so maybe it's fair to say that besides being a total failure, the Catalyst had a very negative and persistent impact in the development of a Brazilian Wikimedia community.

As far as I could see, after that final dismissal of the Catalyst program by August or September 2014, what remained of it was a weak User Group named "Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil", formed back in December 2013 as part of the Catalyst Program, with a strong component the Wikipedia Brazilian community, aiming at becoming the future Wikimedia Chapter in Brazil. By July 2014, just before the closing of the Catalyst Program, Rodrigo Padula, at that time hired staff for the Catalyst, come up with a UG proposal for a group that apparently would be a continuation of the Catalyst model, working mainly offwiki. The proposal gathered a lot of opposition, and was cancelled by Padula himself by September 2014. In February 2015 he reapplied, and 2 months later the AffCom had approved it - Maor X sent the approval message himself. In the meantime, the User Group Wikimedia in Brazil kept growing, receiving a lot of well known and very active members from the Wikipedia Community - such as Victor Lopes, Chico, Ixocactus, NMaia, just to name a few. Notable academics as Joalpe (prof. Peschanski) also joined in from outside, becoming very active Wikipedia Community members in the process. This is one of the groups the AffCom decided to kill recently. The other was the inheritor of the Catalyst model, a WMF creation.

What seems to me, as an outsider, is that the WMF created the beast, the AffCom happily fed it, and when they were done with the experiment, they recklessly killed the offspring. The obvious victim was the Brazilian Wikimedia community, which is now in shambles - but still fighting to get up again, completely on its own.

Please correct me if I misunderstood something, I am just trying to understand how the whole thing developed.--- Darwin Ahoy! 12:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DarwIn: I am not sure that Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil was formed as a part of the Catalyst Programme. It looks like more of a heritage of Wikimedia Brasil, for instance, they kept historical Wikimedia Brasil's website (Wikimedia Brasil materials, Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil proposal at the same website). As a reminder, back in 2011 WMF decided to launch a programme with an independent entity and not with Wikimedia Brasil, thus I assume people involved in Wikimedia Brasil were not the biggest fans of Catalyst.
Yes, Talk:Wikimedia Brazilian Group of Education and Research/User Group Proposal shows that the conflict already existed in 2014 (and heritage of Catalyst is probably another unresolved issue). From what I know, however, both groups kept growing and receiving new members since 2014, and both were developing new activities, and they both share responsibility for not being able to work together.
And yes, I think many people agree that Catalyst model failed. I am pretty sure WMF is not interested in organising one more Catalyst programme anywhere in near future. Brazilian community, unfortunately, will now have to overcome this history and find ways to work together — NickK (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NickK: Indeed, it does not seem to have been directly (or at least openly) part of of the Catalyst program. However, apparently people working for the Catalyst were indeed directly involved in the process, namely in communication with the AffCom. But as you say, it's mainly heritage of the failed Brazilian Chapter, which apparently had some momentum with the presence of the Catalyzer to become a UG.
"back in 2011 WMF decided to launch a programme with an independent entity and not with Wikimedia Brasil, thus I assume people involved in Wikimedia Brasil were not the biggest fans of Catalyst" - Wikimedia Brazil was merely a project of a chapter at the time, I don't see how a partnership could have been signed with something that was a mere proposal. But from what I could see, it was quite the opposite. Look here for instance, here, here, here. I can't find any signal of Wikimedia Brazil being against the Catalyst (apart from some warnings from Argenton, at some point), it was very much the opposite, indeed. The rejection and resistance apparently was from the onwiki community (Brazilian, Portuguese, etc).
"From what I know, however, both groups kept growing and receiving new members since 2014" - Not quite so. From what I could see,the "catalyst group" kept losing members, reaching almost zero community presence by late 2016, early 2017, apart from Padula himself. Later on, particularly after the "Wikipedia Scientific Congress" in November 2017 they could effectively reach to and engage some members of the onwiki community (2 or 3 if I well recall). But Padula kept saying it was an offwiki group, so if it had any progression, it was something that couldn't be seen and evaluated. What could be seen was an inexorable decay to zero in community engagement, and then a very weak recovery in late 2017, just before it was killed by the AffCom.
The other group, as far as I know, had the opposite progression. It kept constantly attracting new community members, and continues attracting them steadily, even now that it is not an official group anymore. It has also a number of very successfully, long term running projects, both Academic and Glam-type, with such entities as the University of São Paulo, the National Archives, the Museu Paulista, and the Casper Libero Faculty. It's is very much alive, despite all the trouble that was brought upon them, most notoriously by the WMF & AffCom supported Catalyst spin-off. But it was also killed by AffCom.
"both were developing new activities" Apparently so. But as the nature of Catalyst group was mostly offwiki, I can't say nothing of those activities. I know some of them, like WLE and WLM, because I deal with them in Commons. I can say that Brazilian community engagement on those is basically null. Generally it's me and other non-Brazilian Commons volunteers that keep sorting out and curating that content.
"and they both share responsibility for not being able to work together." Do they? I don't know. When the AffCom recognized two user groups with similar objectives sharing exactly the same geographical area, both presumably aiming at the final objective of becoming a Chapter (of which, as everybody knows, there can be only one) they should be expecting some kind of fratricidal war between both of them, at some point. It's very hard to me to think they were not expecting something so obvious and clear as that strife for territory and limited resources. A strife on which only one competitor could survive, at most. The AffCom resolved the issue by killing itself both competitors (which it generated in first place). And the Brazilian Wikimedians being the laboratory rats of all those experiments. It's quite hard to blame any of those groups "for not being able to work together", when they just behaved as expected.--- Darwin Ahoy! 15:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DarwIn: Thank you for your comments. There are many people whom we can blame, but I don't think this will help move forward. And right, this means my understanding was at least partially wrong (I did not follow on-wiki discussion on Portuguese Wikipedia, thus I clearly missed something) and I think that you might have questions to more informed people than I — NickK (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey NickK. It's not really about blaming, but rather about asking questions, analyzing what went wrong, learning lessons and setting up plans for the present and future. Yes, it would be nice to see the AffCom recognizing their own problems and faults, and their share of responsibility for this disaster. But much more important than that, is the "Next Steps" that are being proposed now seem to be as seriously flawed as the rest of their initiatives and attitudes towards the Brazilian Wikimedia community during the last 10 years, since the times of the ChapCom or whatever it was called back then. I asked a number of direct, simple questions to the AffCom below, which I believe may help understanding all this. Let's hope they reply...--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NickK: "I am pretty sure WMF is not interested in organising one more Catalyst programme anywhere in near future. Brazilian community, unfortunately, will now have to overcome this history and find ways to work together" - In case you have interest, I've found this very interesting thread about the Catalyzer. Here @Everton137: tells how the WMF intervention was absolutely catastrophic, with the Catalyzer destroying and decimating the existing framework of the Wikimedia community in Brazil, replacing it by a model of its own that very quickly proved to be a failure. It's really mind-boggling why the AffCom had unquestioningly and uncritically approved a spin-off of that failed project, in record time, to directly compete with the existing Brazilian Wikimedia community that was once again rebuilding itself, and starting to stand on it's own legs, after that WMF produced (and heavily funded) disaster. And it's even more astonishing how they attempted to resolve that situation they created themselves not only by extinguishing the spin-off of the failed Catalyzer experiment, but also the old Brazilian Wikimedia community group with ten years of history. One wonders why have they done such a thing.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions from Chico edit

With a week having passed since I asked for clarification through email, I question to what "rigorous mediation process" this statement refers to. Though I repeatedly questioned WMF, Affcom members, and the Affcom list in the past year, no mediation process that I could see was ever started. As Milosh pointed out, the mediation we did start through our own initiative was torpedoed in its infancy by WMF and Affcom.

As I have also stated to Affcom and WMF in private, it is very troubling to me that Affcom and WMF require meetings between people that have reported harassment and the reported harassers as a condition for full participation in the Wikimedia Movement.

Should we expect any further engagement from WMF and Affcom? Chico Venancio (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Chico, I have replied to your e-mail, but I would like to clarify again that there were attacks from both sides online and offline, including interaction bans violated. So please, I would like you to remember that. --Maor X (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The placement of an office action that was repeatedly violated unilaterally and not enforced by WMF or Affcom is a big part of the way Affcom and WMF contributed to this situation. I recall, for example, Maor X, personally pointing out how it was violated to you in a Request for adminship and you siding with the group violating the office action. Chico Venancio (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, the private email in no way addresses the questions placed here. Chico Venancio (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why was such a page created if there was no intention in responding to the questions and concerns expressed? Chico Venancio (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions from DarwIn edit

1) Dear AffCom, and specifically Maor X, who I understand was chairing that Committee at the time: Why have you approved a second User Group for Brazil, after little more than one year of approving the first, which shared the same exact geographical region, the same language, and with what seems a completely overlapping scope? Why have you quietly ignored all the strong protests against it by many members of the community, which even let to its initial withdrawal, and approved it anyway?

2) Why, when everything developed as expected, and both groups started quarrying over activities, shared framework, cultural and educational institutions and other limited resources, you decided to derecognize, not only the Catalyzer spin-off you decided to approve in spite of all good sense and all warnings and advices, but also the Community group that had been forming and evolving since 2008, since the days of Wikimedia Brazil, and who had nothing to do with your decision of approving a replica of it?

3) Can you explain and justify your affirmation that "the Brazilian community is much broader that the contributors involved in these two former User Groups."? Do you really believe there is a never ending supply of Brazilian Wikimedians to keep replacing those who fall, get burnt, or simply lose interest and stay away of all those experiments?

4) Many institutions, partners and groups were actively working with those two groups, including the biggest University of Ibero-America, the National Archives of Brazil and many more. Since the "much broader Brazilian community" is not the one that is working with them, what plans/solutions do you propose to keep those partners and projects going on in Brazil, after derecognizing the UGs?

Thank you,--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Darwin, in regards to your questions I would like to clarify that 1) Brazil is a huge country with over 200 million inhabitants, more than 80 times the size of Portugal, and the scopes are not completely overlapping. If that would be a reason for rejecting an application, then many (if not all, since all work in English) User Groups in the USA should be disbanded as well, based on your criteria; 2)There was an entire internal discussion inside the AffCom and the actions taken were voted by the committee members, with different options on the table. Members of both user groups had engaged for years in a never-ending conflict, which is something you should know well since you are an editor of the Portuguese Wikipedia; 3)Many wikimedians from Brazil that have declined to participate on either group had contacted us before, privately and not, expressing their reasons not to participate in these groups because of the ongoing conflict; and 4)These projects may go on without an user group as a partner, but that is sadly a consequence the leaders of the user groups should have taken into account at some point.--Maor X (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Maor X, I don't need to be lectured about the size of Brazil. Also, as far as I know, there's not a single situation in the USA of complete overlap between region and scope, as was the case with the second Brazilian UG you've recognized. What I need you to explain is:
  1. Why have you recognized a second UG in Brazil, with completely overlapping geographic region and scope? And worst, essencially a single-person "group", an ex-WMF staffer from the failed Catalyst Program, ostensively using a Catalyst-like, offline approach to community engagement, that proved to be catastrophic (in the words of its very staff members) for the Wikimedia Movement in Brazil during the days of that Program?
  2. Why have you ignored very clear warnings about division and conflict should a competing UG be approved by the AffCom, and Padula's UG was approved anyway? Why have you done it despite all public conflict and strife between Padula and the already existing UG, that was already occurring for months at the time?
  3. Why do you, when finally decided to take some steps to resolve the mess you created yourselves in the first place, have decided to eliminate both groups, instead of simply removing the new UG which was causing the conflict since its very inception?
  4. What steps are you taking to ensure that any Brazilian UG that gets approved from now on doesn't fall into the same experimentalism, and that you are not adding an entire new level to the already existing mess AffCom has created with their very questionable decisions?
Thanks,--- Darwin Ahoy! 19:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DarwIn All your questions just confirm what I said before. You are not Brazilian, you jumped in the Portuguese chapter some months ago(with a very negative approach, generating local and international conflicts instead of joining to help). You are not aware of the complete story and for sure you are here trying to defend and help just one side. You don't complete understand all dynamics of the international movement and the real situation, as was explained by Maor X. Since our group was de-recognized, we are moving forward and working as an independent organization, moving forward with our projects and initiatives. I was responsible to write and negotiate great part of the agreement to create the first user group and after the end of the Brazilian Catalyst program, some contributors acted to keep all members of the Catalyst Program away from this movement, fighting against me, Oona, Henrique and the Ação Educativa(WMF's partnet) as well. Since I started many partnerships that was not kept by the local community, I decided to propose a new UG, that some members fought against it. I applied just because I wanted to move forward with many projects started during the Brazilin catalyst program that nobody was working on like Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Monuments and some other initiatives linked to GLAM and education program. When members of Wikimedia In Brasil user group started to fight against that new proposal, that was signed by a lot of members from our community, AffCom recommended me to withdraw the proposal and seed what happens next. Since the user group approved was inactive, with no reports sent to WMF and were ineligible to participate in the Wikimedia Conference, I decided to re-open the proposal, collected new signatures and applied again, based on the local inactivity, AffCom approved our new proposal and since then we developed many activities, events, partnerships and as result we were invited as a model of a good User Group to participate in talks/conversations on Wikimedia Conference and during Wikimania in Montreal. All projects and results generated by Wiki Education Brasil are results of the hard work of our team, if you read the results and projects of the Wikimedia no Brasil you can see that everything is developed in the scope of the USP/Neuromat initiatives with a central focus in São Paulo, not the entire group or entire country. Our group is working with a national focus, with activites developed in many parts of the country and international scopus with the organization of the Internatonal Wikipedia Scientific Conference, Wiki Loves the Olympics, Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Monuments and etc. It's vey important to make it clear that the conflict is not against me, it's against any member of our group, including you helped them generating more conflicts and noise, removing content uploaded by us to commons, marking GLAM content for removal with no previous conversation. That is exactly what you are doing here, you are not Brazilian, you are not trying to mediate or help to find any solution, you just jump to one side and is here writing about a lot of stuff that you dont know. I talked to the local wikimedians to stop to fight for nothing and mainly stop to generate noise with WMF, AffCom and SuSa, but they preferred to try to get all international attention increasing a problem that could be fixed here. They moved forward with attacks on wiki and off-wiki that culminated with Chico blocked forever on and many interaction bans recommended by the foundation, what is very sad of a lot of well grown men. We will not stop to do what we were doing just because AffCom/WMF choosed an very arbitrary decision, we are moving forward waiting for a final solution and real conversation. I strongly recommend to you, to not jump in this discussion generating more noise and problems, I thinkg that you generate sufficient problems for the chapter in Portugal, I guess you need to try to fix the local chapter, not the problems in the other side of the ocean. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"yada yada yada you are not Brazilian" - *plonk* --- Darwin Ahoy! 14:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are several lies in the above attack by Padula. I do not think this is at all a constructive approach and is another example of the type of behavior that WMF and Affcom are encouraging by their actions in the past few years. Chico Venancio (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"AffCom recommended me to withdraw the proposal and see what happens next(...)based on the local inactivity, AffCom approved our new proposal" - this is absolutely unbelievable. So Padula himself confirms that the approval of the second, conflicting group was arranged in private with the AffCom, who - according to Padula - assumed the existing group was going to die anyway. The "problem" is that the existing group was not moribund, and instead grew and prospered. It is increasingly obvious that the AffCom seriously messed up things in Brazil by reckless and silently approving a clone of the existing group. And now AffCom attempted to fix up their own mess by killing the clone along with the existing group, creating an even bigger mess. I sincerely hope the AffCom would mend their behavior in the way they have been dealing with Brazil, the destruction and mess caused in the Brazilian Wikimedia community by reckless AffCom decisions, going back to 2014 - at least - is very much unacceptable.--- Darwin Ahoy! 15:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You dont have any idea of what are you saying here. Our team had direct contact with AffCom like all organizations and groups around the globe. AffCom recommended us to withdraw the proposal, since nothing happened during this time, I reopened the proposal and sent it to AffCom. Only after the approval of the new user group, the old one restarted to do something and report to affcom and to the movement, you can track it on meta seeing the date of the updates and reports posted here on meta, that's why we were able to join the Wikimedia Conference and the other group dont. Again, you are here disseminating distrust against our group and against the members of AffCom without a complete overview of the situation in the time of the proposals sent. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is really startling that the AffCom has recklessly approved a clone of an existing group, with strife already going on openly for many months between the individual that represented that "group" (which basically consisted in himself, for all practical effects), in the hopes that the group that already existed would eventually die (or whatever means "based in their inactivity"). If nobody here has "a complete overview of the situation", it can be only blamed on the AffCom itself, for a culture of secrecy and opacity, going on the opposite direction of what should be expected of something emanating from the Wikimedia Movement, as the AffCom is. The first of the "Brazil Next Steps" should be precisely putting an end to that, and discuss the future of the Wikimedia Movement in Brazil in the open with the Brazilian Wikimedian community. It is very clear what those closed, unexplained and inexplicable decisions by AffCom have already caused to the Wikimedia Movement in Brazil.--- Darwin Ahoy! 02:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline of AffCom relation with the Wikimedia Movement in Brazil edit

Hello. Using the available public information, and for the sake of clarity, I've set up a timeline of the AffCom relation with the Wikimedia movement in Brazil:

  • 2008, September: Chapters Committee recommends Wikimedia Brazil as a Wikimedia Chapter
  • 2008, October: WMF Board of Trustees recognizes Wikimedia Brazil as a Wikimedia Chapter.
  • 2009, May 13: ChapCom proposes revoking Wikimedia Brazil as a Chapter, for lacking "a legal structure/corporation that is legally independent from the Wikimedia Foundation". The resolution proposal fails.
  • 2010, February 17: IRC meeting between ChapCom and Wikimedia Brazil about the state of the Brazilian chapter
  • 2010, April: ChapCom resolves to recommend to the Board of Trustees the rescission of the resolution approving Brazil as a Wikimedia Chapter, for lack of bylaws and a structure, and reported unwillingness of the volunteers of the Chapter to create them.

-- 2010, October: Start of the Catalyzer Program in Brazil --

  • 2011, March: A new chapter proposal is put forward
  • 2011, August 5: Proposed letter of agreement between Wikimedia Foundation and Brazilian volunteers, concerning the relation between the Wikimedia Chapter in formation in Brazil and the Catalyst Program.
  • 2012, October 12: Constitution of Associação Pietro Roveri pela Colaboração e Conhecimento Livres, aiming at providing the requested legal framework for the Wikimedia Chapter in formation in Brazil
  • 2013, April 23: AffCom questions the nature of Associação Pietro Roveri pela Colaboração e Conhecimento Livres as a basis for a chapter.
  • 2013, October 12-15: Rodrigo Padula, WMF-hired staff for the Catalyst Program, uses the Catalyst slot for the Iberoconf in Mexico to meet with the AffCom and deal a User Group solution for the years long chapter formation process, which was staled and waiting an AffCom reaction for many months. Padula's interference with the Wikimedia community in the UG proposal was done despite the Catalyst team liderance, who considered it overly negative and direct cause of internal conflict in the community, nearly causing Padula to be fired from the Catalyst Project.
  • 2013, October 14: Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil is proposed to the AffCom
  • 2013, October 23: AffCom ends a long period of silence, stating the Chapter formation process was definitively ditched, but a UG solution would be welcomed.
  • 2013, December 25: Affcom recognizes the Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil
  • 2014, July 23: Rodrigo Padula, WMF-hired staff for the Catalyst Program, announces to the Iberocoop mailing list he has proposed to the AffCom a second UG in Brazil; in the [Wikimedia Brasil] thread it becomes clear Padula was no longer welcome at the existing Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil he helped creating, due to unwanted interference.

-- 2014 August/September Dismissal of the Catalyst Program in Brazil --

  • 2014, September 12: After severe opposition and criticism, both onwiki and at the mailing list, Rodrigo Padula withdraws his UG proposal
  • 2015, February 11: Padula reapplies his formerly withdrawn UG proposal to the AffCom
  • 2015, April 10: AffCom recognizes the Wikimedia Community Brazilian Group of Education and Research

-- Strife with Padula continues, involving the newly created group from its inception, and continuously escalating --

  • 2018, April 8: AffCom revokes recognition of both Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil and Wiki Education Brazil, on the grounds of "severe and protracted conflict [between both groups], which has resulted in significant harm to past, ongoing, and planned Wikimedia movement activities in Brazil". The Brazilian Wikimedia community is suggested by teh AffCom to come up with a "new organizational structure and model that will better serve the needs of movement participants and stakeholders in the country"

--- Darwin Ahoy! 07:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DarwIn I really don't like the way you presented all comments and timeline here, since you were not involved in the entire story, you are not Brazilian, you are from Portugal where there are a inactive chapter trying to survive and since you started to participate more actively you were responsible to generate a lot of problems in your country, with important contributors from the education area moving away from the chapter and to complete you were blocked on Iberocoop's telegram group based in your behavior and lack os respect with the feminist activism leaded by the group. I think that you should move away from this discussion since it's a local issue that must be fixed by the local community, affcom and wmf. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, Padula, I'm not really interested in whatever you think about me, nor I have any idea why you're bringing your opinions about me to a discussion on Brazil. The time line is there, it's well sourced, and everyone can take conclusions by themselves. Bon voyage, go by the shadow.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are trying to pass the vision of the timeline based in your group of fellows arguments and your very superficial view of the entire situation. AffCom know very well the entire timeline. As a person trying to control the chapter in Portugal, you are moving in the wrong direction as I told you before. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For Heavens sake, stop trying to bring Portugal into this, this is a discussion about Brazil. You're quite tiresome with all the ad hominem, general trolling on Portugal and those thick walls of text. You were already plonked above, now here too (and in the rest of this discussion). Talk to the hand.--- Darwin Ahoy! 14:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly, it is about Brasil, you are not Brazilian, you are not member of any of the impacted user groups and there is no reason for you, as a member of the Wikimedia movement attack us and affcom in the way you are doing here in your comments. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an open forum, and he is an active member of the Portuguese Wikipedia. I don't see why he can't give his opinion about this situation. Tetizeraz (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tetizeraz Yes, it's a open forum, but that page was created with the idea to FIX the problem and discuss solutions. He is not helping here attacking one side and attacking AffCom in that way, including, I think it is not good for the problem that they have in Portugal this participation here, instead of fix the local problems he is here disseminating distrust and attacking AffCom without a deep understanding of the real situation and past problems. That is my opinion, you can have a different one. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is not good at all to the problem is to have this Padula individual here constantly trolling about Portugal, which has no relation at all with this issue. I am a member of the global Wikimedia community since 2009, and I've never limited myself to any specific country. Most of the friends (friends, truly) and acknowledgments I've made at the Wikipedia in Portuguese over all those years are from Brazil, and for more than 9 years already I'm deeply involved with the Brazilian community. When the AffCom has taken that ill-considered, unfortunate, inexplicable decision of extinguishing the UG of the Wikimedian Community in Brazil, whose roots go as far as 2008 - being one of the first chapters formed in the movement back then - I was very much part of that UG, actively helping in a number of GLAMs and other projects. At Wikimedia Portugal we also had also an ongoing partnership with that UG relating to GLAMs and Educational projects. It obviously continues today, though informally, but AffCom pulling the rag from under that partner feet has caused some logistical turmoil and a limbo which was completely avoidable. I don't need to explain all that, as it's nothing but an absurdity that I have to be Brazilian myself to understand, participate and attempt to help in a constructive way in the current discussion about Brazil - it should be more than enough that I'm part of the Movement.--- Darwin Ahoy! 02:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are just trying to defend your fellows, generating more noise and attacking AffCom for no reason. But ok, let's see where we will go with all your negative intervention here and there. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My fellows are the Wikimedia community in general, wherever they are. There's no "other group", there no "other side" in Brazil: There's Padula. And Padula is just Padula, yet another troubled Catalyst heritage that the AffCom, for some undisclosed reason, has chosen to feed.--- Darwin Ahoy! 04:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-recognition and unfreezing the funds for both groups edit

In the light of National Museum of Brazil fire I suggest immediate re-recognition, unfreezing the funds and urgent funding for the both groups, so they could deal with the disaster. --Millosh (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I urge both groups to work together to overcome this with or without WMF funds. --Millosh (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support, but only for a unique, super group (both former groups working together in a new one).--- Darwin Ahoy! 19:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support that the groups come up with a joint plan of action. Based on that, the WMF can consider the appropriate response. If it really so desires, the WMF *can* be swift. Effeietsanders (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's very important to make it clear that since December 2017 we are in touch with the National Museum with a GLAM agreement writed in partnership with the institution, signed by me and this agreement is with the board of the institution since them. Since AffCom de-recognized our group with no previous conversation or serious mediation and WMF freezed our funds, we had a lot of difficulties to keep the local projects moving forward as quick as we planned initially. So we were not able to advance as we planned with the National Museum, so, we moved fast with other institutions in parallel. For sure the de-recognition and funds freezing impacted in that partnership with the museum and now is too late to move forward in some aspects, but we are in touch with the board and some researchers from the institution proposing some changes and updates in our initial agreement to move forward in other ways. Since the group was de-recognized I tried to contact AffCom and directly some members and I were completely ignored by them. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Padula states, Affcom and WMF has been extremely slow or outright non-responsive through all of this. The lack of participation in this page being the latest example. Chico Venancio (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it's difficult to understand why AffCom has even created such a page, if their intention was to go on with the politic of secretiveness, opacity and general attitude of ignoring the community they were supposed to be serving.--- Darwin Ahoy! 14:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely understand the AffCom and WMF's point of view, since great part of the contacts made by Brazilians are always to prove a point and attack the other side. Sometimes you show a "good intention" to try to fix the local issues but in other hands are removing content, blocking and kicking users from communication chanells, sending emails and messages to other people trying to disseminate distrust. We are in a boring, exhausting situation, created and maintained by yourselves in this attempt to be the only and sovereign to dominate all initiatives in Brazil. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think this is at all a constructive approach and is another example of the type of behavior that WMF and Affcom are encouraging by their actions (and lack thereof) in the past few years. Chico Venancio (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lack of AffCom’s participation edit

It’s been a while and we have just seen a couple of words from a member of AffCom. There are so much to be discussed, but it is going to be impossible with that level of participation. I can’t avoid to bring more questions. This time regarding this lack of interest.

1. Should we expect more engagement from AffCom? I am still patiently waiting and if there is no intent of participating, please, at least mention it here so we won’t have to wait for it. That would be far from desirable, but at least will show the minimum respect.

2. I wonder if this level of interest/participation is the same that was used on dealing with the previous cases. If it is, that explains why nothing was ever resolved and why the resolutions of AffCom were always shallow and chosen not for being the best or most fair, but only for being the easiest ones, while serious issues were being raised demanding a quick resolution when important policies of Wikimedia were disrespected. Please, tell me if my view is mistaken.

3. Are you willing to acknowledge that AffCom has serious issues and politely discuss about how to improve it with community or are you satisfied with how AffCom currently works? I hope you are not, as, like I said above, it’s about a few important policies that had been disrespected in the past, that deserved a better answer from AffCom. A misfunctional body can’t keep dealing with things like harassment that are a threat to our environment and this absence sadly has already caused one of our female editors to give up of Wikipedia. For a movement that wants more women editors, that should be something to worry about. It is because I want to avoid it for the future, that I don’t plan to stop looking for any improvement. Even facing this astonishing silence.

Written on mobile at work pause. Sorry for any mistake. Thanks...—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 01:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging edit

@Alangi Derick, Satdeep Gill, Rosiestep, and Maor X: I'd like to know if the Affiliations Committee has at least read this talk page, and if they are still considering how those movements can be recognized again. I'm also pinging other active users from the Affiliations Committee if that's alright. Thanks! Tetizeraz (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alangi Derick, Satdeep Gill, Rosiestep, and Maor X: - 10 days since these pings. No Affcom response since 26 August. Ixocactus (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply from AffCom edit

To all who have participated in the conversations on this talk page:

We would like to reassure you that we are paying attention to the conversation, however, the committee is finding it difficult to contribute as expected due to the direction the commenters have been aiming the conversation on this page. The page is intended to be a space where community members and organizers can regroup and discuss with the committee potential new organizing steps that may be carried out by alternative members of the community. The committee is specifically hoping to hear from other voices from the communities of Brazil to share ideas and potential plans for reorganization by interested community members who have not built up a reputation of conflict with other community members in pursuing programmatic efforts to advance the Wikimedia movement but a reputation of cooperation or even collaboration with others in the Brazilian context.

We understand that this talk page conversation has not been very productive and that it has contributed to frustration. We will not be engaging in rehashing the case as it is closed. While we are paying some attention to the conversation here, the committee will not be engaging in discussion with those parties who were explicitly involved in the conflicts in this way.

We would like to caution readers of this page and the recent Wikimedia-l thread about Wikimedia Portugal against making conclusions regarding this situation based on the information that has been shared. These conversations do not present a complete and accurate picture of the situation. Though not comprehensive, we would like to provide a brief summary of the situation. The Brazil situation and the Wikimedia Portugal situation are not the same. The Brazil user groups de-recognitions happened after many years of personal conflicts which transferred to the leadership of both groups and festered. After more than a year of intensifying conflict between the two user groups and after individual interaction bans and offers for mediation all failed, the situation exploded, in a very public way, around a Wikimedia event in partnership with a University. Specifically, when the committee made an offer of mediation in June 2017, the user groups were unwilling to sit down to the same table, while the committee held two separate meetings with each of the groups at IberoConf around that time, the level of disinterest in working to resolve the conflicts between the parties was enough that the committee did not see a path forward with mediation. The committee also understands there was a separate offer to the groups from the Community Capacity Development program lead which also found no traction with the group leads before this attempt and, there was a third offer of mediation on the table, offered by an individual community member in response to the conflict around the first Wikipedia International Scientific Conference. However, when the user groups grant opportunities were suspended as a result of this very public display around a Foundation-funded event, that offer was withdrawn. Importantly, the de-recognitions of the two Brazil user groups were considered for cause as the issues were not seen to be resolvable given the positions and interests of the specific parties involved in continuing to escalate the conflict and create a bad public impression of our movement. This was not following an official suspension and remediation timeline process due to the disinterest in the mediation offers and extremity of the conflict. Thus, the situations are completely different.

As it has been stated on the Meta page, the committee is looking forward to assist and support members of the Brazilian wikimedia community interested in setting up an affiliate and help further the movement’s mission and vision, with the exceptions of those that had disciplinary action against them during the course of the Brazil conflicts, which will not be eligible to take part in the leadership of a new user group. We hope that this message helps to reorient the Brazil communities toward a potential path forward.

Regards, Maor X (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exactly is your plan? Do you expect other users to come here and comment? How are you going to inform the users about it if you never let them know? I really don’t get your understanding of how wiki works... or you weren’t really interested on having any comment here at all.
There are unanswered questions above that could help us to understand how AffCom plans to deal with conflict in future. What was also shown here and on wikimedia-l is the inability of AffCom of dealing with this conflict. If has been repeatedly left clear that my intention is understanding the issues and trying to solve them. Denying that AffCom has serious internal problems, won’t help the community. A late comment (two months late) that won’t address any issue related above and won’t at least direct to a better place to discuss is just coherent with the accusations that AffCom holds so far. We were always willing to be mediated but there was no mediation. The only requirement we did was not being forced to be on the same place of the harasser. We were always willing to keep working productively and forget the past problems, with the only requirement of not working together with the harasser. WMF is constantly working on reducing harassment and I just thought it wouldn’t be too much asking it. So, the biggest “flaw” of my group was just because we didn’t want to keep contact with another person that insulted many of us, was responsible for having one of our group members abandoned Wikimedia projects? If you still think we didn’t want to be mediated, it’s clear that you are misunderstanding the whole case. Could you stop saying that we didn’t want to be mediated please? At least say that we didn’t want to be forced to stay in contact with the harasser, which was your requirement and left us with no option, despite we let it cleat that we have interest on solving the issues without the risk of being insulted while AffCom just keep looking again and again.
Is that really your idea of a good conflict management? Putting the harasser together with the harassed and expect they can solve it by themselves? And if the harassed don’t want it, it’s their fault? Do you expect anyone agree with that? Can’t you see you are repeating an act of violence? Wasn’t the first enough? Seriously... you had time to think and discuss. And it keeps getting worse and worse. This is one of the most tragic and terrifying position of a committee I have ever seen on Wikimedia projects. I have no more doubts that AffCom has serious issues and the biggest one is not being aware of it.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 14:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maor X: I'm sad to hear about AffCom decision after creating this page and allowing for other users to interact here. I'd like to ask some questions, if that's fine. Please don't take so long! ;) 1) Can individual members still contact those that were

former key contacts, board members , or community members having had disciplinary action against them

from the de-recognized user groups to help set a new user group? Can they participate in new user groups created by the Brazilian community? 2) Would AffCom accept a user group for each state in Brazil? If the answer to that is yes, is it still OK to accept members from other regions? I'm still pretty sad about AffCom's decision, and I hope there's still a way to change it. Tetizeraz (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tetizeraz! To address your questions:
  1. You are welcome to contact individuals who were involved in the de-recognized user groups, and such individuals are permitted to participate in other user groups (subject, of course, to the one-year restriction on such individuals serving as leaders of another user group). That having been said, any new user groups must go through the normal application process, and we reserve the right to examine the proposed leadership of any new group as part of that process.
  2. While we cannot necessarily promise to approve any particular user group before an application is actually submitted, the practice of having multiple user groups in a country divided along state or regional lines has ample precedent, as this is how user groups (and even chapters) in the United States have operated for many years. Whether to accept members from outside their particular regions would be a decision that each user group could make on its own, or the entire community could make collectively; while we have not seen open memberships cause significant problems in other contexts, the community in Brazil will need to consider whether there are any unique factors that would make this problematic in your local context.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to ping me! Kirill Lokshin (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Application for recognition of the user group Wiki Movimento Brasil edit

@Kirill Lokshin and Maor X: I am glad to report to you and others watching this discussion that an application for the recognition of the User Group Wiki Movement Brazil was submitted to the Affiliations Committee on March 12. The application was initially replied to by @DNdubane (WMF): with further inquiries on April 11, to which a reply was sent on the following day. On April 19, we were told that the application was being reviewed by the Affiliations Committee and that we should expect communications in the next two weeks. On May 10, as no communication came, we wrote back and were told we would hear from DNdubane (WMF) today (May 13), after a committee meeting yesterday (May 12); We received a response from User:DNdubane (WMF) stating another delaying again, this time to May 21. We are not sure this very slow pace is usual --though it certainly does not follow the projected time for approval. In any case, we are bringing this up on this thread as many members of the movement are of course following closely what is happening in Brazil and for the sake of transparency. Thanks. Ederporto (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ederporto:, As per my email to you less than an hour ago.

I can inform you that the Affiliations committee is currently dealing with 12 Applications including yours. They have made progress on their applications queue as you correctly refer to two new groups having been recognized recently. You can expect communications from me next Tuesday (21 May 2019) at the latest regarding a decision on your application, as I will be working to provide additional support and information during the week.

. I trust that you will afford the Affiliations committee members the time needed to apply their minds to applications as required. Best regards --DNdubane (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your response, DNdubane (WMF), as I said in the comment, the reason for bringing this up here was to be more transparent with the members of the movement that follow Brazil's situation. A point to make is that as stated in your email May 10,

You will hear from me on Monday ( 13 May 2019), following a committee meeting on Sunday (12 May 2019) evening. The committee will relay any further concerns or follow-up questions should they have not reached a decision on your application.

after my email asking for you to present real prospects on dates, we were supposed to receive any concerns or follow-up questions of the committee by today (May 13). Nonetheless, we will wait until the 21th for an update. Thank you and good contributions, Ederporto (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am very happy to announce that we have received a guiding response on what we hope will be the final step towards the recognition of the User Group Wiki Movement Brazil. DNdubane (WMF) wrote to us today (May 21) congratulating us and stating that we are one step away from becoming an official Wikimedia User Group again!

Some requests were made for adequacy for the first 6 months of activity, in order to guide the development of the group. Important parts of the requests have already been met and the remaining parts will be carried out during the indicated period. As we understand from this letter, an official announcement of the re-recognition of our user group is to be expected in the coming days. Ederporto (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good evening, DNdubane (WMF), can you give us an update on the situation? We sent an email to you as our digital signature, but have not received any response since then. Thank you. Ederporto (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to "Affiliations Committee/Brazil Next Steps" page.