On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Emeric VALLESPI <emeric.vallespi@gmail.com
wrote:
Katherine,
[...]
The lawyers you have appointed have been paid by the Foundation. They *only* interviewed the defendant.
Is this true? Because if what Emeric and Remi say is in fact true, it seems inappropriate to characterise what happened as an "investigation". An investigation listens to both sides.
If lawyers hear from one side only, that's called "seeking legal advice". In other words, "We consulted a lawyer, and they advised us that the allegations would not stand up in court."
More clarity on this would be appreciated. So, whom did, and didn't, the expert French legal counsel appointed by the WMF interview?
Andreas
In these conditions, how could the outcome not be favorable to his version?
You did not answer any of my previous questions:
Why did not the Wikimedia Foundation hear Nathalie Martin at her request? Just to have her version of the facts, it would have been - maybe ... - a good idea. Why did the experts who were supposed to conduct an adversarial investigation not discussed with Nathalie or Marie-Alice? Would not that have been the least of the things? Why did not they hear the board of trustees’ member? Why did you refuse to organize, as you (or your representatives) were offered, a confrontation between complainant/defendant? Why fear so much to hear the version of Nathalie?
You have witnessed what Marie-Alice and Nathalie have experienced with social media as well as on the mailing-list you're hosting. You've done absolutely nothing to protect them. You're mentioning complaints that have been filed to the Support and Safety committee, which has no legal existence in the real world (outside of the movement). I am talking about real criminal complaints in a police station. Whether you can compare the two shows your total unconsciousness.
Again, the role of the Wikimedia Foundation is not to determine whether the current Chair is guilty or innocent. Nor whether the acts are sexual or moral harassment. Your role, as an organization, is, to a minimum, to hear the victims and to ensure their protection. You have undertaken everything to mask this situation in order to guarantee your tranquility. It is a shame for a movement that wants to be humanistic.
Regards,
Emeric Vallespi
2017-10-19 23:19 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org:
Everyone,
The past six months have been a complex and troubling time for our community in France. Let me be absolutely clear, with no confusion or ambiguity, that the Wikimedia Foundation condemns harassment. We take all harassment claims seriously, investigate them promptly, and take the appropriate action to enforce our policies whenever necessary. My goal
here
today is to provide more information about the actions of the Wikimedia Foundation, the principles to which we adhere, and the situation in which our movement finds itself.
As many of you know, there have been months of discussion within the
French
Wikimedia community, independent committees and governance bodies, and
the
Wikimedia Foundation about the governance and operations of Wikimédia France. During this time, we have seen growing tensions between a number
of
the former leaders of Wikimédia France and some members of the French Wikimedia community. This situation created great strain on the French community, former and current staff of Wikimédia France, and concerned Wikimedia volunteers around the world. Much of this was documented by community members[1] and in the press.[2] Over the past months the Foundation has received formal and informal complaints alleging
harassment
and other harmful behaviour, and we have enforced existing policies whenever applicable.
Recently, an individual associated with our movement published an essay about the events in France on the blogging site Medium and shared that essay with this list. It contained a number of deeply concerning allegations of harassment. Let me first address the most troubling claims of the recent essay—those regarding the Foundation’s handling of allegations against the Wikimedia Foundation’s current Board Chair.
In May of 2017 the Wikimedia Foundation was informed, in a letter and for the first time, that the then-Executive Director of Wikimédia France was alleging claims of harassment against the current Board Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, dating back to his tenure as former Chair of Wikimédia France. In this letter the Executive Director described a
number
of interactions with the Foundation’s Board Chair when he was Chair of Wikimédia France, and went on to accuse him of using his position as Foundation Board Chair to to turn the Wikimedia Foundation’s sentiment against the French chapter.
Contrary to the assertion in the Medium essay, while the former Wikimédia France Executive Director’s letter detailed tense and disagreeable interactions between the two individuals, it did not characterize those interactions as sexual harassment. Also contrary to the essay’s
assertions,
the Wikimedia Foundation took immediate and appropriate action after receiving the complaint.
The Wikimedia Foundation, under clear direction from our Board, responded promptly:
- We notified the Vice Chair and Board Governance Chair immediately
after receiving the then-Executive Director’s letter.
- Under their direction and supervision, we promptly hired expert
French
legal counsel to conduct an investigation on this issue.
- The Foundation Board Chair was informed of the investigation and
recused from all relevant discussions. The Board Chair was also
recused
from any discussion regarding Wikimédia France and the French
Wikimedia
community, including any participation in funding decisions.
- The investigation by the experts found that the French chapter’s
Executive Director’s detailed statements of facts, in addition to not being characterized by her as sexual harassment, also did not support a finding of sexual harassment.
- Based on the information provided, French counsel also looked at
whether the allegations supported a finding of “moral” harassment, ultimately concluding that they did not.
- The findings were conveyed to the then-chair of the board of
Wikimédia
France. The chapter leadership was asked on more than one occasion if
it
had any additional evidence or wished to further discuss the conclusions. No additional information was provided.
- Under these circumstances, the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation
found
no merit to the charges.
*As has been repeatedly stated, the Foundation remains fully committed to reviewing and investigating additional information, if presented, of
sexual
or other harassment allegedly committed by any Wikimedia Foundation staff or board member. We fully condemn harassment in the Wikimedia movement.*
The essay in Medium also references experiences of a number of former Wikimédia France Board members who reportedly left their posts because of alleged harassment from French Wikimedia community members. In the
majority
of these cases, the Wikimedia Foundation has not received complaints and has no further information about these allegations.
We are aware that some people working at the Foundation for some months have received comments from a number of community members through
informal
channels about alleged intra-community harassment. These included complaints and allegations of harassment made against the former
Wikimédia
France Executive Director and then-Board Chair by Wikimédia France staff and community members, as well as counter-complaints from former
Wikimédia
France board members against members of the French community. In each instance of which we are aware, the individual raising the complaint was directed to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Support and Safety team, which is trained and equipped to independently investigate and assess these
matters,
particularly where members of the larger Wikimedia community are
concerned.
In total, the Foundation received roughly a dozen of these complaints.
Each
of these complaints received by the Foundation was investigated and responded to promptly, enforcing the relevant anti-harassment policies whenever appropriate. In some cases, and when appropriate, our response resulted in content (for example, content that identified Wikimedia community members who guarded their anonymity) being removed from public websites or the Foundation contacting users who posted inappropriate material. In others, we found that while certain comments at times
crossed
the lines of civility, the actions did not meet the threshold of sanction under our policies or constitute intentional or sustained patterns of harassment.
As a cumulative result of these complaints, the Wikimedia Foundation has recommended to Wikimédia France that they take immediate steps to
implement
a friendly space policy. At the chapter’s exceptional September general assembly, the motion to develop and implement a friendly space policy passed with overwhelming support, with 98% of the membership voting in favor.[3] The Wikimedia Foundation has offered Wikimédia France our assistance with this policy’s composition and implementation.
We are committed to working with the new Wikimédia France conseil d’administration (governing board) to support the French community as
they
work to address and resolve these and other outstanding issues. The Wikimedia Foundation and the new leadership of Wikimédia France are
already
cooperating to address the governance-related concerns raised by the volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee in the first half of 2017. As
part
of this work, we have encouraged them to review how they will
independently
handle claims of harassment in the future. The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimédia France share a common goal: a healthy, welcoming, respectful, inclusive Wikimedia community in France.
I know I am not alone in my dismay for how these events have unfolded.
Many
dedicated, good-faith members of the French community, including current community members and present and former Wikimédia France board and staff members, have experienced distress and anxiety over recent months. Those outside of the community have watched with dismay as our peers and
friends
have found themselves disoriented, distressed, alienated, or at odds with one another. And yet we also know that many in France now feel a renewed sense of purpose for building the healthy and welcoming community we all desire.
Situations such as the recent events in France provide us with an opportunity to learn from the past in order to do better in the future.
We
have seen this time and again in our communities, as organizations (including the Wikimedia Foundation) have emerged from governance and
other
challenges stronger, with deepened commitments to openness,
collaboration,
and humility.
Today is another such opportunity.
Katherine
[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/
[2] http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2017/09/11/vers-une- sortie-de-crise-a-wikimedia-france_5184101_4408996.html
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-nos-vies- connectees/20170718.OBS2248/exclusions-menaces-budget- recale-c-est-la-crise-chez-wikimedia-france.html
[3] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/ WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf/page1-2550px-WMFR_AG_2017-09-09.pdf.jpg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Caroline Becker <
carobecker54@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Emeric,
I am very pleased that you take mental health seriously. I remember,
not
so
long ago, that your actions while you were in Wikimedia France had
serious
impact on the mental health of at least two of your members.
In January, someone had a meltdown just in front of you. Could you
remind
us what you did after that ?
In April, you learnt that your actions as a chair caused me a medical leave. What can the Foundation and the movement as a whole learn about
how
you dealt with the situation ?
Warmly,
Caroline
2017-10-12 12:39 GMT+02:00 Emeric Vallespi <emeric.vallespi@gmail.com
:
Dear Maria, Dear all,
The Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees, the executive and the
legal
management of the Wikimedia Foundation have been informed of Nathalie Martin's complaint against her former employer now member of your
board,
and then of the criminal complaint against this same person (facts
from
his
time in Wikimédia France and other from his time in your Board).
It would have been logical for a board of trustees member to gather
her
testimony. No one has sought to make contact with her. Why? At the very least, the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees could
have
requested a copy of the complaint, as well as the various
testimonies,
so
that they could study them and make their opinion. We had no
solicitation.
Why? From what I see, the Wikimedia Foundation has done everything to
stifle
the problem. Here is the only initiative WMF has taken: paid
"independent
lawyers" (a concept unknown to me…) to "question Christophe". He
responded,
to the general surprise, that there was no problem. Do you really feel that this is a serious investigation? Honestly? Why did not these lawyers also hear Nathalie? Why did these lawyers not ask questions to the Wikimédia France Board
of
trustees members? Only with the testimony of the defendant himself,
the
Wikimedia Foundation today states that there is no problem. ... During the site visit, Nathalie proposed to the Wikimedia Foundation representatives to organize a confrontation. Not only did she have a
flat
denial, but, moreover, it was replied that it must not be addressed. Why did the Wikimedia Foundation not accede to this request for confrontation? Not to know the truth which can be too embarrassing to assume?
We have a movement employee who brilliantly held management responsibilities for 4 years (great longevity for an Executive
Director…)
who asked for help. And what is the answer of the movement, of the Wikimedia Foundation? Nothing. Nothing was undertaken to give her any
kind
of listening or help.
Marie-Alice Mathis, who courageously expressed disapproval of the
sexist
harassment of Nathalie, was also harassed by community members.
Nathalie
and Marie-Alice suffered health damages and had medical leaves issued
by
real general practitioners. The Wikimedia Foundation was informed and
what
did you do? Nothing, or worst: two messages from your staff
legitimizing
the harassment and one from a member of your board who publicly
stated
against Wikimédia France without any prior contact with us. What kind of help or support did you offer to Marie-Alice?
The outcome of the complaints is not even the issue at this stage and
this
is not my point (I’m not a judge as you or other community member
think
they are). The real problem is that today a man in the movement, if he has power position, can do absolutely everything he wants without any control.
The
problem is, despite all the empty values you’re communicating on, you legitimize whatever the community does. Because the community is the measure of all things. No objective process is foreseen to protect women (and more
generally,
people) or at least to hear them. Do you find this normal for a movement that advocates inclusiveness
and
respect?
I’ve read an ardent defender of epicene style of writing who is
accusing
of lying other women because of their private then public
declarations.
Having no clue of what is in the procedure. Thank you for
enlightening
me
about true fight with feminism.
I’m glad that « We take all allegations of harassment seriously »,
but
I
can not endorse this functioning which goes against legality and
simply
against human values.
N.B: English is not my native language, may you be as tolerant of my selected words or sentences construction as with harassing behavior.
Thanks
for your understanding.
Regards,
Emeric Vallespi
On 11 Oct 2017, at 19:54, María Sefidari kewlshrink@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear all,
We would like to specifically address the allegations related to
harassment
in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of
harassment
seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed
that
allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia
Foundation
Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France.
We
immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation
employed
independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based
on
the
information presented, the investigation found no support for the allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia
Foundation
Board
as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent
investigation
if
presented with new information. Absent such information, we
consider
the
allegations to be without merit.
On behalf of the Board,
María Sefidari
El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad" jeblad@gmail.com
escribió:
When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably be more
opinions
to
them than the very clear blame-game that were going on. Having a
partly
anonymous community and a chapter that only represents some of the
users
are an invitation to fierce battles.
Whatever going on at WMFR, I believe it is time for reevaluating
the
role
of WMF in this. I'm wondering if there should be a new board for
WMF,
unless they get a new chair themselves asap. Reorganize, solve the problems, and move on.
No, I do not know any of the people involved.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Marie-Alice Mathis < mariealice.gariel@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I haven’t had a real opportunity to introduce myself: I am
Marie-Alice
Mathis, 32, a now ex-member of the Board of Wikimédia France.
The transition with the newly elected members of the Board is now
complete
and I gladly step down to get away from the violence, exhaustion
and
frustration of these past few months.
I was a Board candidate because after completing my PhD I finally
had
more
time to contribute to the projects and serve the community through
the
French chapter: after watching my husband Rémi Mathis do it for
years
I
had
a pretty good idea of what it meant. I did not know our ED
Nathalie
Martin
or our chair Émeric Vallespi before working with them, and now
that
I
have
I can vouch for their hard work and attachment to the movement’s
values.
Today, I have lost friends or people I thought were friends
because
I
defended Nathalie and Émeric in good faith during the smear
campaign
based
on the community’s assumption that they were the source and cause
of
all
the chapter’s problems, real or perceived. Although I have worked
with
them
closely for a year, I have been repeatedly informed that I’ve been manipulated by Nathalie from the start and should not have blindly
believed
everything Émeric was saying. I’ve been personally attacked on WMF
sites,
email lists, and social media for weeks, my every word
scrutinised,
questioned and mocked assuming I was either ignorant or lying.
I’ve
been
told by so-called feminists who were endorsing a particularly
sexist
rant
against me to “stop making inflammatory comments”. I’ve been
called
a
conspiracy theorist because I questioned the role of our former
chair
Christophe Henner, now chair of the Board at the WMF, in the
threats
to
withdraw our chapter agreement and the cutting of half our FDC
funding.
People close to Christophe who have resigned from the WMFR Board
early
in
the crisis rather than take responsibility for their mistakes now
call
themselves victims and whistleblowers. The WMF, who is perfectly
aware
of
the charges of sexual harassment filed by Nathalie against
Christophe
for
facts dating back to when he was her boss at Wikimédia France, is pretending WMFR leadership has used the threat of legal action to intimidate chapter members and silence opposition.
Some unfounded allegations have been made on this very list by
prominent
members of the community (and what is a newbie’s word worth in
that
case,
right?): from extremely serious accusations of misuse of chapter
funds
for
personal gain (that strangely enough never made it to the French
justice
system despite a so-called “rather convincing rationale”), to
gratuitous
ones that Nathalie was making the Board’s decisions for us and
dictating
our communication (I am old enough to write my own emails, thank
you
very
much), to ever vague ones of “quite generous expenses
reimbursement“.
None
of this has been supported by proof or tangible facts, but the
goal
of
spreading distrust and dissent in the chapter and the wider
community
has
clearly been reached. Even now that Nathalie has left her position
and
the
Board has resigned, some are still defaming her in the French
media
in
the
hopes of winning the stupid argument of who were the bad guys in
the
crisis.
I am also extremely disappointed that no one from this list asked
us
(the
Board) what was happening when these allegations were made, with
only
a
handful of people suggesting to wait before all the facts were
known.
Instead, you took for granted the very short and extremely biased
English
summaries of the Board’s communications (which were instantly
circulated
on
this list without our consent and in violation of our chapter’s
bylaws),
and joined in the chorus of outrage, condemnation and verbal
abuse.
But worse to me than all this, I am actually terrified at how
easily
the
Wikimedia community can turn on a person, with no regard
whatsoever
for
decency or legality, when it has made up its mind about who has no
place
there. I have personally experienced what it means to disagree
with
this
angry mob: questioning the dominant opinion or calling out
individuals’
toxic behaviour makes you in turn acceptable collateral damage
and a
“fair
game” target for harassment.
Speaking of this, the movement as a whole needs to address the
issue
of
staff-volunteers relations exemplified by the rapid turnover of
executive
staff across chapters. Nathalie stayed at WMFR an almost record
breaking 4
years, but at what cost? I’m being extremely serious in adding
that
this
conversation needs to take place before something irreversible
happens
as
a
result of harmful group behaviour within the community.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis // AlienSpoon
PS: for your information about my position regarding the WMF’s
role
in
this
crisis and their recent unilaterally added conditions [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_expectations_for_ Wikimedia_France_-_2017-2018] for payment of our FDC-attributed grant, I attach my email to Katy
Love
from Sept 20.
Katy, (Cc WMFr Board and Rémi)
In the WMF "Grant expectations" document sent to the Board of
WMFr,
you
mention as a condition for APG funds payment that I do not resign
from
my
position on the Board until the governance review is complete, and
that
any
Board member planning to resign must report and justify it to WMF.
You also mention that you retain the right to cease funding WMFr
if
you
consider that legal threats are being used inappropriately to
stifle
civil
and appropriate participation in the chapter. Moreover, you
condition
payment to being informed if the chapter leadership feels that
legal
action
is appropriate to take against current or former board members or
staff.
Let me be clear: these conditions are outrageous and unacceptable.
First of all, my legitimacy as a Board member of WMFr does not
come
from
any commitment to WMF but from being democratically elected by
French
chapter members. WMF has no say in who stays or not on the Board,
and
trying to intervene on such governance issues is, again, putting
both
organisations at risk of being legally recognised as co-employers.
Second, as a (volunteer) Board member I have been subjected to
harassment,
sexist abuse, and unjustified allegations of misconduct by
community
members, that have impacted my health and mental well being to the
point
where I was no longer able to do my (paid) job in cancer patient
care
and
my GP put me on medical leave. A large volume of this abuse took
place
on
WMF property (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro and the WMF-hosted, publicly archived mailing lists wikimedia-l and wikimediafr). You personally and on behalf of WMF encouraged French community
members
to
challenge chapter leadership citing governance issues, without a
word
mentioning the violence suffered by the Board and executive staff
at
the
hands of some French members during this crisis. Worse, you
presented
the
Board's email condemning the harassment as inaccurate and
problematic,
which made the community feel all the more legitimate in their
harmful
attacks. When I reported the abuse in person to WMF employees during the
site
visit
you personally empathised with my distress at the time, and
thanked
me
for
being honest about how your email to the wikimediafr list had made
our
already precarious situation untenable. And then you did nothing. My husband Rémi, who witnessed first hand the effects of the
harassment
on
my health, called on you to release the site visit report so the
misconduct
allegations would stop. You didn't, until 3 days before our
General
Assembly (where the allegations were repeated), on the same day
you
asked
that I stay on as a Board member. Even your choice of words in the
"Grant
expectations" document is telling: "egregious incivility" is not
what
we
are talking about here. We are talking about unacceptable and
illegal
defamation and harassment with serious real life consequences. Rémi also called on the wikimedia-l list to stop the unfounded
allegations,
and was attacked in turn because of "his conflict of interest as
the
husband of a Board member". He also reported the abuse to the WMF governance committee, to the Suport and Safety team and mentioned
it
to
Christophe Henner and Katherine Maher on Twitter, to no avail. To
this
day
we haven't received any support or acknowledgement whatsoever. All
the
while the sexist abuse continues, and French editor MrButler was
moderated
on the wikimediafr maling list for his continued personal attacks
against
me. This is exactly the kind of behaviour the Board's email to the
members
was calling out, yet you continue to deliberately ignore it and
refuse
to
do anything about it.
Finally, your asking to be informed of any legal action against
chapter
members or staff is yet another example of the WMF taking sides
while
posing as a neutral arbitrator. Calling someone out on their toxic behaviour or actually filing a complaint are no legal threats or intimidation, but by claiming they are you are trying to silence
victims
by
denying them their basic rights to legal protection. At least two complaints have been filed against community members and more may
be
coming, including on my behalf. You will not be informed because
it
is
not
for WMF to decide whether they are justified or frivolous.
For all these reasons I am deeply shocked and hurt by your payment conditions and will not abide by the terms of your grant
expectations.
With
most of WMFr funding hanging in the balance your unilaterally
revised
conditions amount to blackmail but I will not stay in harm's way
at
the
request of the organisation who has failed me in every aspect
when I
came
in good faith to work for the community. I will resign when I see
fit
to
protect my health, and continue to speak honestly and publicly
about
your
actions and empty words of safety and inclusivity.
Sincerely, Marie-Alice Mathis, vice chair of WMFr _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Katherine Maher Executive Director
*We moved! **Our new address:*
Wikimedia Foundation 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher@wikimedia.org https://annual.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe