Mr. Szymborski,
I understand you have very little faith in the Wikimedia Foundation, and
are upset about some past decisions and statements it has made. As I
already wrote above, you are welcome to express that criticism so long as
you manage to remain civil, which includes avoiding vulgarity.
But I also must insist that you not hijack this thread, which is for
discussing the draft UCoC. If you see value in bringing up your concerns
on those other matters on this list, please do so on separate threads.
Since you have expressed the opinion that this UCoC draft is illegitimate,
I suggest there is really no reason for you to post further on this thread,
leaving it for those who *would* like to discuss it.
As you have seen, we have not yet prevented any of your messages from
reaching the list, but we will, if you refuse to respect this express
expectation.
A.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:15 PM Dan Szymborski <dszymborski(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Sure, WMF running roughshod over the community is
something that doesn't
happen.
I must be imagining the events that led to the community open letter on
renaming, which featured nearly a thousand individual endorsers and 72
community affiliates.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
And do we *really* want to go into events leading to Heilman's suspension
from the board or Tretikov's resignation? The Fram suspension and under
whose authority the investigation was launched? Should we talk a bit about
the Funds Dissemination Committee?
I would wager we don't, but if someone's going to suggest to me with a
straight face that we should assume the goodness and purity of the WMF,
then there's all this and a *lot* more to unwind. This can't be hand-waved
away; too many people "know where the bodies are buried."
Cheers,
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:48 AM Anders Wennersten <
mail(a)anderswennersten.se>
wrote:
I want to echo Jackies two mail
The community for svwp is not so big and complicated issues on conduct
are uncommon. But when they occur we often get caught in argument like "
you who claim to decide over svwp CoC are just a small kabal of some
10-120 admins, you are unrepresentative and the enwp CoC says
otherwise". It will be of big help for us when we need not go into
detailed discussion over every abuse, but can refer to the UCoC (and not
just ToU).
And wordings... We consist of people form many different culture and
language, so what one small group can be seen as acceptable wording can
be seen as offensive to other.
When I worked in the Swedish global company Ericsson, the interal
language was English. But in reality that internal vocabulary only used
5-10% of the English words, and never puns or sarcasm, and often rather
blunt expressions than too "flowery". I think something similar must be
what we use in our internal communication of Wikimedia. And that will be
welcome for all non-native English people, but can be harder for native
English people. I have given feedback to top WMF people when the used
too complicated/flowery sentences that made it hard for non-natives to
understand what was said.
Anders
Den 2020-09-10 kl. 16:16, skrev Jackie:
> Dan,
>
> I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a
Universal
> Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It
would provide you with a
clear
understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your
use
of the word "flatulence" (which, funny
enough, I had to reference
spelling
from your email because I have *never* written
this word in any
correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such
words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an
organization
of professionals is simply operating in bad
faith. That sort of comment
is
> hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower
> people in the free knowledge movement.
>
> This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews
> discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people
who
*should*
be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are
rather
homogeneous in participation because of responses
like this call for
discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive
and
covered by a Code of Conduct.
In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a
CoC
> would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The
people
> reporting the concern would have avenues on
which to do so without
facing
> public backlash and the steps for reviewing
reports would be clear.
Based
> off of other CoC examples, this often
includes who will respond to such
> concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly
> identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what
response
and
support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel
education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person
violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their
behavior
impacts others and still be a valuable member of
the community.
If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is
offensive, I
am more than happy to discuss this with you via
phone or video chat. I
find
that text-based communication provides
complications for discussions
about
> emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation
and
upset
about the result.
Best,
Jackie
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon <josephseddon(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its
inception.
>> Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski <
dszymborski(a)gmail.com>
>
wrote:
>
>> I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an
organization
>>> to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't
considered
>>> "collegial" enough yet the
actions that the WMF has taken over the
last
> 18
>> months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are*
considered
>> collegial.
>>
>> If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to
special
>>> moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list
pushing
> the
>> failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
> community?
>> One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is
also
>>> someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
>> things
>>> that took up countless hours of community time, including making
legal
>>
threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
>>
>> I am a longtime, accredited journalist, possibly even slightly
respected
> in
>> the field -- though there's always that risk of Dunning-Kruger -- who
has
>> written for a ton of outlets and
there's not an editor in the world
that
>> I've worked with who would've
asked me to change the *very* gentle
> wording.
>> If anything, I was too mild. *I'm* grossly offended by the WMF's
actions
>>> over the last 18 months. *I'm* grossly offended by the perversion of
a
> free
>> information movement being converted into a third-tier social media
app.
>> *I'm* grossly offended by board
policies that empower the vested, the
>> connected, the politically adept to judge the weak and the voiceless.
> *I'm*
>> grossly offended by the people here who cheerfully announce the board
>> arbitrarily changing board terms or that the community has no actual
say
> in
>> what the *community* (not the board) built. The Wiki movement is far
> bigger
>> than the WMF; which is a good thing because I can't imagine it being
>> smaller than the board's self-dealing petty bourgeoisie affair.
>>
>> No, I didn't mean petit.
>>
>> Yet I don't call for anyone to be silenced because, well, disagreeing
>> vigorously is what adults are able to do.
>>
>> It matters not if this message is censored by the list overlords. One
of
>>> the few benefits of being a journalist is that combination of
>>> self-righteousness and having myriad ways to prevent an opinion from
>> being
>>> suppressed on dubious grounds.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:55 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
>>> wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> A code of conduct id something many of us have asked the WMF to
write
>> for
>>>> many years. We are asking the WMF to take an active part in stopping
>>>> abusive behaviors in our community.
>>>>
>>>> On fr wiki, many admins say they are tired of conflicts and that
they
>> did
>>>> not enroll to deal with them. A code of conduct could help then take
>>> action
>>>> because it offers a frame.
>>>>
>>>> This is COMPLETELY different with the branding process.
>>>>
>>>> We are one of the few projects in the open source world without a
code
>> of
>>>> conduct.
>>>>
>>>> So thank you for this draft, thank you for opening up for
discussions,
>>> and
>>>> I hope the language will remain respectful.
>>>>
>>>> I believe moderators should ban from this list the person who spoke
>> about
>>>> « wmf flatulence ».
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I dont want to read that type of language among people who are
>>> supposedly
>>>> asked to write neutral enccyclopedias.
>>>>
>>>> It puts pressure and stress on those who would like to answer on
this
>>>> thread, it sets an aggressive
climate.
>>>>
>>>> Please could we all feel empowered to apply our founding principles
>> and
>>>> refuse any such language here and on meta in these discussions?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Nattes à chat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>>>>
>>>>> Le 10 sept. 2020 à 03:53, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> a
écrit
:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yair
>>>>>
>>>>> I was in the room in 2017 when the first community consultation on
>> the
>>>>> strategy program took place. Affiliates were asked to send a person
>>>>> specifically for the strategy process, and WMF also invited some
>> other
>>>>> community members. There was absolutely no coercion, or control
over
>>> what
>>>>> topics were raised during those discussions. The program was not
run
>> by
>>>> the
>>>>> WMF and everyone was free to contribute any ideas they had, as the
>>>> program
>>>>> went on we chose which areas and topics we wanted to be the focus.
>>> Trust
>>>>> and safety, and user conduct were areas that were identified as
>>> necessary
>>>>> to the future development of the movement. This process has been
open
>>> for
>>>>> ideas, comments, and suggestions. Yes the WMF has funded the
process
>>> but
>>>>> every choice has been made by community members without any duress
or
>>>>> reward as to where each step
lead.
>>>>>
>>>>> As someone who actively runs projects for the last 10 years to
bring
>> in
>>>> new
>>>>> contributors, I have concerns about the UCoC process in giving
>>> advantages
>>>>> to those who have been around longer but that is not something that
>>> will
>>>> be
>>>>> unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the
new
>>>> person
>>>>> is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash
>> between
>>>>> them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand
<yyairrand(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in
June
>>>> 2019
>>>>>> by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the
>>> strategy
>>>>>> process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF
>>>>>> appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had
>>>>>> pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
>>>> wildly-misleading
>>>>>> reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC
itself
>>> was
>>>>>> drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees,
through
a
>>>> process
>>>>>> set by the WMF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus
>>> against
>>>>>> having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business
in
>>> setting
>>>>>> ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every
board
>>>> member
>>>>>> and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every
>>> affiliate
>>>>>> into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be
>>> demonstrating
>>>> how
>>>>>> far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are
>>> self-governing
>>>> and
>>>>>> will implement policy based on community decisions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, I disagree with Dan's calls for
>>>> nonparticipation/noncooperation
>>>>>> or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up
in
a
>>>>>> situation where the WMF
tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue
>>>>>> contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would
be
>> the
>>>> time
>>>>>> for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly
level
>> the
>>>>>> Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to
work
>>>> with
>>>>>> them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Yair Rand
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת Jackie <
>>>>>> jackie.koerner@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely
>> implementation
>>>> of
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like
this
is a
>>>>>>> WMF-driven project.
I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC,
>> but
>>> I
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are
untrue.
>>> It
>>>>>>> doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's
actually many
>> groups
>>> of
>>>>>>> people working together. It was determined as a major need
during
>>>>>>> discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working
Group
>> and I
>>>> am
>>>>>>> glad to see this moving forward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your
>> feelings
>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people
express
>>>>>>> themselves and mask
insults as "lively discussion" is a huge
reason
>>> why
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would
suggest
>> you
>>>>>> share
>>>>>>> in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just
cannot
>>>> take
>>>>>>> you seriously with the language you used in your email. I,
however,
>>>> would
>>>>>>> love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in
a
>>>> good-faith
>>>>>>> discussion about the UCoC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our
needs as
>>>>>>> individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To
dismiss
>> the
>>>> UCoC
>>>>>>> is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and
their
>>> effect
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jackie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
>>>> reachout2isaac(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Dan,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think
that's
>>> better
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> more useful on the Draft talk page.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That being said, by "effective vote or
representation in the
>>>>>>> proceedings",
>>>>>>>> you probably expected a different model where different
language
>>>>>>>> Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on
weather
to
>>> have
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> UCoC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The current model isn't bad. I do think we should
review the
>> draft
>>>> and
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> there are specific wording we disagree with, we can
either
suggest
>>>>>>>> improvement or
removal altogether. I honestly think we need to
>> help
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> support the drafting committee at this stage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Isaac
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski, <
dszymborski(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS
that I'd really
>> like
>>> to
>>>>>>>> get a
>>>>>>>>> $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability
to offer
an
>>>>>>> opinion
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> proceedings with no effective vote or representation
in the
>>>>>> proceedings
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer
the WMF keep
its
>>>>>>>> flatulence
>>>>>>>>> to itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde <
>>>>>>> reachout2isaac(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, I do not think this is an
imposition by the
>> Board
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> WMF
>>>>>>>>>> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and
suggest
>>> improvement.
>>>>>>>>>> I have been following the process closely and I
do not see
>>> anything
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> looks like an "imposition"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a
substitute to the
>> existing
>>>>>>>> policy
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected
of users in
any
>>>>>>>>> Wikimedia
>>>>>>>>>> project.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Isaac
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, <
>> dszymborski(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> As this is being explicitly imposed by the
board from above
>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>> community approval, participating in any way
is ethically
>>>>>> unsound.
>>>>>>>>> Doubly
>>>>>>>>>>> so without a board election preceding this
as the WMF has
>>>>>>> arbitrarily
>>>>>>>>>>> denied communities the right, as manifested
in the election
of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> community seats, to voice their opinions of
actions that WMF
>> has
>>>>>>>> taken
>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>> the last 18 months. A collaborative process
is a
collaborative
>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>> it's actually a collaborative process, not
just when it's
> called
>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>>>>> The best use of time at this point is to organize
the
> communities
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>> every means at its disposal to resist such an
imposition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley
<
>>>>>> pearley(a)wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, everyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We are excited to share a draft of the
Universal Code of
>>>>> Conduct
>>>>>>>>>>>
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
,
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
called for earlier
this
>>>>>> year
>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_…
>>>>>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>>>>> for your review and feedback. The discussion
will be open
> until
>>>>>>>> October
>>>>>>>>>> 6,
>>>>>>>>>>> 2020.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The UCoC Drafting Committee
>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants
>>>>>>>>>>>> to learn which parts of the draft would
present challenges
for
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>> work. What is missing from this draft?
What do you like, and
>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> improved?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks to the Committee, and
everyone who has helped
with
>>>>>>>>>>>
translations
>>>>>>>>>>>> so far.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please join the conversation
>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>>>>>>>> and share this email with others who may be
interested to
> join,
>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>>> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the
Universal Code
> of
>>>>>>>> Conduct
>>>>>>>>>>> page
>>>>>>>>>>>
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> FAQ
>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> Meta.
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_…
>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
>>>>>>>>>>>> [4]
>>>>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Patrick Earley
>>>>>>>>>>>> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>>>>>>>>>> pearley(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>> ,
>>>>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Jackie Koerner, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>
jackiekoerner.com
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>> ,
>>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
>> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> GN.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Power of Diverse Collaboration*
>>>>> *Sharing knowledge brings people together*
>>>>> Wikimania Bangkok 2021
>>>>> August
>>>>> hosted by ESEAP
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikimania:
https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
>>>>> Noongarpedia:
>>>>> My print shop:
https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>> 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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe:
,
>>>> <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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe:
,
>>>
<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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>