There's a quote popularly attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt:
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."[0]
Now, I'm not calling any particular people small minded, nor am I suggesting we stop talking about issues. What I am suggesting is that we talk about issues, and not people. The axe grinding and personal denigrations are being pushed further and further to the limits during this turmoil, and I humbly ask that it stop, and that moderation is used if needed to do so. I'll have no sympathy for those who wish to continue to go after fellow human beings for political gain.
0. http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/11/18/great-minds/
Thanks. I also got reminded about that a few times, recently. I would love this to be more reflected upon.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There's a quote popularly attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt:
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."[0]
Now, I'm not calling any particular people small minded, nor am I suggesting we stop talking about issues. What I am suggesting is that we talk about issues, and not people. The axe grinding and personal denigrations are being pushed further and further to the limits during this turmoil, and I humbly ask that it stop, and that moderation is used if needed to do so. I'll have no sympathy for those who wish to continue to go after fellow human beings for political gain.
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree with your point, and hope that we can find the courage to remind each other of this more often. Small, early reminders can go a long way towards avoiding a gradual erosion of boundaries.
Gabriel
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Denny Vrandecic dvrandecic@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thanks. I also got reminded about that a few times, recently. I would love this to be more reflected upon.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There's a quote popularly attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt:
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."[0]
Now, I'm not calling any particular people small minded, nor am I suggesting we stop talking about issues. What I am suggesting is that we talk about issues, and not people. The axe grinding and personal denigrations are being pushed further and further to the limits during this turmoil, and I humbly ask that it stop, and that moderation is used if needed to do so. I'll have no sympathy for those who wish to continue to go after fellow human beings for political gain.
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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
On 3 Mar 2016, at 10:49 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There's a quote popularly attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt:
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."[0]
Now, I'm not calling any particular people small minded, nor am I suggesting we stop talking about issues. What I am suggesting is that we talk about issues, and not people. The axe grinding and personal denigrations are being pushed further and further to the limits during this turmoil, and I humbly ask that it stop, and that moderation is used if needed to do so. I'll have no sympathy for those who wish to continue to go after fellow human beings for political gain.
-- ~Keegan
I agree with this, though I wonder about what to do when people cause events that damage the central ideas and tenants of an organization.
Just a thought.
Chris
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Chris Sherlock chris.sherlock79@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with this, though I wonder about what to do when people cause events that damage the central ideas and tenants of an organization.
Just a thought.
It is not hard to keep discussions involving people relevant to the issues at hand, and discuss people in context of their role or influence in events and decision making, and these discussions are good to have.
Starting threads pointedly about individuals, with discussions about the issues only tangential to the point of the attack on the individual is a very different thing, one that I think most recognize when they see this, as well as other threads that are coatracks and sea lioning.[0][1] For every positive thread we're generating, we're producing at least two other toxic threads. And we're tolerating it. We have to stop.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coatrack 1. http://wondermark.com/1k62/
Hi Keegan,
I'm fond of the principle of civility. I'm wondering how you suggest that we balance civility with the need to hold people accountable. For example, if someone makes a series of highly problematic decisions, or commits a wikifelony in their particular role (for example, blatant misuse of CheckUser, or misappropriation of movement funds), it may be that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and that the Wikimedia community would be best served by having that person step down or be removed. The community, WMF, and arbitration committees have removed people from various offices who have messed up, usually repeatedly or seriously. So I'm wondering how you suggest that we balance civility and accountability. I feel that it's tough to do, and would like to hear suggestions.
Thanks,
Pine
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Chris Sherlock <chris.sherlock79@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree with this, though I wonder about what to do when people cause events that damage the central ideas and tenants of an organization.
Just a thought.
It is not hard to keep discussions involving people relevant to the issues at hand, and discuss people in context of their role or influence in events and decision making, and these discussions are good to have.
Starting threads pointedly about individuals, with discussions about the issues only tangential to the point of the attack on the individual is a very different thing, one that I think most recognize when they see this, as well as other threads that are coatracks and sea lioning.[0][1] For every positive thread we're generating, we're producing at least two other toxic threads. And we're tolerating it. We have to stop.
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Keegan,
I'm fond of the principle of civility. I'm wondering how you suggest that we balance civility with the need to hold people accountable. For example, if someone makes a series of highly problematic decisions, or commits a wikifelony in their particular role (for example, blatant misuse of CheckUser, or misappropriation of movement funds), it may be that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and that the Wikimedia community would be best served by having that person step down or be removed. The community, WMF, and arbitration committees have removed people from various offices who have messed up, usually repeatedly or seriously. So I'm wondering how you suggest that we balance civility and accountability. I feel that it's tough to do, and would like to hear suggestions.
Thanks,
Pine
Write words with measured logic and sound emotions.
Don't write words with outlandish hyperbole, conspiracy theories, destructive criticism, gross assumptions and stereotypes, and massively loaded language.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Keegan,
I'm fond of the principle of civility. I'm wondering how you suggest that we balance civility with the need to hold people accountable. For example, if someone makes a series of highly problematic decisions, or commits a wikifelony in their particular role (for example, blatant misuse of CheckUser, or misappropriation of movement funds), it may be that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and that the Wikimedia community would be best served by having that person step down or be removed. The community, WMF, and arbitration committees have removed people from various offices who have messed up, usually repeatedly or seriously. So I'm wondering how you suggest that we balance civility and accountability. I feel that it's tough to do, and would like to hear suggestions.
Thanks,
Pine
Write words with measured logic and sound emotions.
"Strike that, reverse it." ~ Willy Wonka[0]
Sound logic and measured emotions.
0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWJo2EZW8yU%E2%80%8B
On 3 Mar 2016, at 3:35 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Write words with measured logic and sound emotions.
"Strike that, reverse it." ~ Willy Wonka[0]
Sound logic and measured emotions.
Thank goodness. I was trying to work out for ages what wasn’t quite right about that!
Agreed +1 from me also.
Chris
Pine ,
One of the things iḿ missing is the wiki movement is an independant judiciary The Wiki community does not apply the following principles : - Presumtion of innocence : Innocent until proven guilty - Favor of the doubt for the accused - Clear procedure - No independant judges : often "judges" are accuser, judge and hangman - No independant system of appeal
Furthermore if you look at elections : people are not elected by the community but by a very insignificant minority ( in size) but a very vocal minority often that bully people into submission, with their "powers"
What the system has in term of egalitarian democracy of the anonimous crowd to start with it lacks in formal democratic principles.
My conclusion "civility" on wikipeida is an illusion but that is only my insignificant opinion
Derek
On 03-03-16 05:01, Pine W wrote:
Hi Keegan,
I'm fond of the principle of civility. I'm wondering how you suggest that we balance civility with the need to hold people accountable. For example, if someone makes a series of highly problematic decisions, or commits a wikifelony in their particular role (for example, blatant misuse of CheckUser, or misappropriation of movement funds), it may be that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and that the Wikimedia community would be best served by having that person step down or be removed. The community, WMF, and arbitration committees have removed people from various offices who have messed up, usually repeatedly or seriously. So I'm wondering how you suggest that we balance civility and accountability. I feel that it's tough to do, and would like to hear suggestions.
Thanks,
Pine
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Chris Sherlock <chris.sherlock79@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with this, though I wonder about what to do when people cause events that damage the central ideas and tenants of an organization.
Just a thought.
It is not hard to keep discussions involving people relevant to the issues at hand, and discuss people in context of their role or influence in events and decision making, and these discussions are good to have.
Starting threads pointedly about individuals, with discussions about the issues only tangential to the point of the attack on the individual is a very different thing, one that I think most recognize when they see this, as well as other threads that are coatracks and sea lioning.[0][1] For every positive thread we're generating, we're producing at least two other toxic threads. And we're tolerating it. We have to stop.
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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
I agree to do so. I'll help you constructively remind. Thank you. /a
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Chris Sherlock <chris.sherlock79@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree with this, though I wonder about what to do when people cause events that damage the central ideas and tenants of an organization.
Just a thought.
It is not hard to keep discussions involving people relevant to the issues at hand, and discuss people in context of their role or influence in events and decision making, and these discussions are good to have.
Starting threads pointedly about individuals, with discussions about the issues only tangential to the point of the attack on the individual is a very different thing, one that I think most recognize when they see this, as well as other threads that are coatracks and sea lioning.[0][1] For every positive thread we're generating, we're producing at least two other toxic threads. And we're tolerating it. We have to stop.
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
+1
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
I agree to do so. I'll help you constructively remind. Thank you. /a
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Chris Sherlock <
chris.sherlock79@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree with this, though I wonder about what to do when people cause events that damage the central ideas and tenants of an organization.
Just a thought.
It is not hard to keep discussions involving people relevant to the
issues
at hand, and discuss people in context of their role or influence in
events
and decision making, and these discussions are good to have.
Starting threads pointedly about individuals, with discussions about the issues only tangential to the point of the attack on the individual is a very different thing, one that I think most recognize when they see this, as well as other threads that are coatracks and sea lioning.[0][1] For every positive thread we're generating, we're producing at least two
other
toxic threads. And we're tolerating it. We have to stop.
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
address
is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
-- Anna Stillwell Major Gifts Officer Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
I just thought Mr. Kolbe's mother didn't hug him enough as a baby.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
+1
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
I agree to do so. I'll help you constructively remind. Thank you. /a
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Chris Sherlock <
chris.sherlock79@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree with this, though I wonder about what to do when people cause events that damage the central ideas and tenants of an organization.
Just a thought.
It is not hard to keep discussions involving people relevant to the
issues
at hand, and discuss people in context of their role or influence in
events
and decision making, and these discussions are good to have.
Starting threads pointedly about individuals, with discussions about
the
issues only tangential to the point of the attack on the individual is
a
very different thing, one that I think most recognize when they see
this,
as well as other threads that are coatracks and sea lioning.[0][1] For every positive thread we're generating, we're producing at least two
other
toxic threads. And we're tolerating it. We have to stop.
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
address
is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
-- Anna Stillwell Major Gifts Officer Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
I just thought Mr. Kolbe's mother didn't hug him enough as a baby.
I did not bring this up in response to any one particular person, thread, or individual post. The issues are much broader and run far deeper, namely, the acceptability of actively or passive-aggressively seeking to hurt others in the guise of all of our shared concerns..
Keegan, regarding
"...actively or passive-aggressively seeking to hurt others in the guise of all of our shared concerns."
Given the nature of the recent crises, some of the things that needed saying were, simply, going to hurt people. You can't accuse someone of incompetence or untrustworthiness without hurting them. Apart from some stuff Jimmy said on his talk page about James, I'm not aware of anyone saying stuff that could be read as *just* seeking to hurt others.
But you're right, I and several others could have taken more care with our words to minimise the distress our views must have caused.
Anthony Cole
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
I just thought Mr. Kolbe's mother didn't hug him enough as a baby.
I did not bring this up in response to any one particular person, thread, or individual post. The issues are much broader and run far deeper, namely, the acceptability of actively or passive-aggressively seeking to hurt others in the guise of all of our shared concerns..
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Hoi, To be brutally honest. The way several people on this list have behaved has been really distressing. The format they used has been a disguise for hostility. The problem is that these "pillars of society" bring the house down.
At issue was trust. Trust between staff and the ED. There were other issues like problems at board level that had little to do with what was initially brought as a big thing (think search engine).
The ED has been sacrificed. It is obvious that the baying for blood has not stopped.
Sad, depressing. Thanks, GerardM
On 3 March 2016 at 12:31, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan, regarding
"...actively or passive-aggressively seeking to hurt others in the guise of all of our shared concerns."
Given the nature of the recent crises, some of the things that needed saying were, simply, going to hurt people. You can't accuse someone of incompetence or untrustworthiness without hurting them. Apart from some stuff Jimmy said on his talk page about James, I'm not aware of anyone saying stuff that could be read as *just* seeking to hurt others.
But you're right, I and several others could have taken more care with our words to minimise the distress our views must have caused.
Anthony Cole
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
I just thought Mr. Kolbe's mother didn't hug him enough as a baby.
I did not bring this up in response to any one particular person, thread, or individual post. The issues are much broader and run far deeper, namely, the
acceptability
of actively or passive-aggressively seeking to hurt others in the guise
of
all of our shared concerns..
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
address
is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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
On 3 March 2016 at 11:53, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: ...
The ED has been sacrificed. It is obvious that the baying for blood has not stopped.
Last time I checked, Lila was still alive and supporting the WMF for the rest of the month. Fortunately the age of martyrs is long past.
It is true that a change of CEO, means a convenient scapegoat so that issues that had absolutely nothing to do with Lila, such as Jimmy Wales' "utter fucking bullshit" attacks,[4] can be spun away and might be forgotten by the community. The trouble is, that many of these problems have not vanished just because Lila will be moving on. The deep rooted problems must be faced by the current board of trustees, and they can rely on the fact that after 15 years of organic growth of the community, there are too many passionate WMF observers, tech journalists and long serving Wikimedia volunteers who have memories stretching back longer than most trustees have been around.
Criticism of the WMF board to be expected, when we read ridiculous contradictions in public statements and the jaw dropping failures in trustee governance over the past few months. Though a couple of "nutcases" (to quote a recent email sent to me) may be read as bloodthirsty and probably not worth focusing on, the vast majority of critical posts are supported by the facts and expressed in a civil way, even if they are grounded in anger and disappointment because, you know, those of us writing here who are not paid to do so, care about what happens to *our* Wikimedia projects and the future of *our* content.
Fortunately we have been reassured many, many times that the trustees are listening, being thoughtful and they are nothing like clowns. Sadly the trustees are also many months overdue to take any meaningful positive action on their own failed governance. As an example, the Geshuri fiasco has not resulted in a single improvement so far, perhaps there never will be anything more than political spin in response, even the Board Governance Committee has not changed a single face as far as I can tell (though, they appear to have not published any minutes since 2013, may there are minutes hidden away somewhere equally opaque, it's beyond my skills to discover them at this moment).[1]
In the meantime, dearest Gerard, please turn down the dial from 11 to a 6, especially if you are going to keep on being the most prolific poster breaking the 30 post soft limit month after month.[2][3]
Links 1. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Category:Minutes 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_to_eleven 3. https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html 4. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/27/trust_me_pleads_wikipedia_former_goo...
Fae
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org