Re: [Wikimedia-l] en.wp office yearlock block

[Mister Thrapostibongles]

Todd

They certainly don't have the expertise. Most of them aren't regular
> participants on the English Wikipedia, and even those who are often dial
> back after joining the WMF. The most relevant expertise is participation in
> the project itself, and familiarity with how things are supposed to be done
> on it.
>

This seems to assume that dealing with harassment and community dysfunction
on the English Wikipedia is quite different to dealing with any other
community that exists in the world today.  Well, to misquote Tolstoy, every
dysfunctional community is indeed dysfunctional in its own way.  But the
problems of correcting that dysfunction are pretty similar across a broad
range of online community, and English Wikipedia is not special.  The
notion that it is, and that nobody who is not deeply embedded in its
dysfunctional culture can possibly know anything, say anything or do
anything about it is simply colossal arrogance and is part of what has led
us into the mess we are in today.


> It takes no money to evaluate an ANI complaint or file an ArbCom case. So,
> while the WMF may have money, that's irrelevant.
>

It takes money to hire people who know what they are doing and to give them
time and space to do it.  Volunteers plainly do not, and the evidence is
before us.

Thrapostibongles
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] en.wp office yearlock block

[Todd Allen]

They certainly don't have the expertise. Most of them aren't regular
participants on the English Wikipedia, and even those who are often dial
back after joining the WMF. The most relevant expertise is participation in
the project itself, and familiarity with how things are supposed to be done
on it. They proved that they didn't have the relevant expertise, by
utilizing an opaque, closed-door process when that wasn't necessary. Anyone
with expertise in how the English Wikipedia operates would know that's a
major no-no.

It takes no money to evaluate an ANI complaint or file an ArbCom case. So,
while the WMF may have money, that's irrelevant.

The English Wikipedia community has far more people, in terms of Wikipedia
volunteers vs. WMF employees, than the Foundation could dream of.

The Foundation has the responsibility to support the community, yes. Never
to overrule it, except in cases of legal requirement, child protection, or
threats of harm to self or others. And in those cases, the WMF and
community are largely on the same page anyway--we don't want pedophiles
editing, copyright violations on our project, or editors threatening to
harm other editors, and the Foundation doesn't either. So in those
instances, we're partners, not antagonists.

If the job of the WMF is to support the community, it has failed
spectacularly and entirely to do so. It has done more damage to the
community than any number of mildly nasty comments about the ArbCom ever
could, with its ham-fisted, unexplained, unwarranted actions. It has also
done serious, perhaps irreparable, damage to that partnership between the
community and WMF, which was in none too great of shape to start with after
the Visual Editor and MediaViewer/Superprotect fiascos.

I thought that at that time, they had learned that the English Wikipedia
would not tolerate this type of action, having WMF actions crammed down our
throat. ENWP administrators have never, to my knowledge, even dreamed of
reversing an Office action before, because we trusted that they would be
taken rarely and only in extremis. Now, two have done so (so far), and both
have been enthusiastically supported in doing so. If that does not go to
show that the community's respect for WMF has been put right in the toilet,
I do not know what would.

Just look at what's happened there. I don't, to be frank, even like Fram
all that well, and I know I'm not the only one. But this is not about Fram.
It's about the community's editorial independence (and, from posts from
Chinese and German Wikipedia users, apparently the editorial independence
of their communities as well). And usurpation of that is not something we
will take lying down.

Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:46 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:

> George,
>
> There are five things that I claimed the Foundation has and the volunteers
> do not:  responsibility to support the community, and the time, the
> expertise, the money and the people to do so.  So that's ten assertions.
> You claim that some of those are unwarranted.  There are over a thousand
> possible interpretations of your claim.  In the interests of a productive
> discussion, would you like to be more precise about which assertions you
> think might be incorrect, please?
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:22 AM George Herbert 
> wrote:
>
> > I think that you are making a number of assertions about the community,
> > individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities
> > that aren't warranted.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is.  The Foundation
> has
> > > the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the
> expertise,
> > > the money and the people to do so.  Individual volunteers, however
> > > well-meaning, do not.  The Foundation has determined that in this
> > > particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide
> the
> > > support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to
> do
> > > so, as you would expect.
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM Techman224 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > > >
> > > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they
> > weren't
> > > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding a
> > > > concern to the office. [1]
> > > >
> > > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> > communities
> > > > consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules
> but
> > > the
> > > > Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no complaints on-wiki nor
> to
> > > > Arbcom privately.
> > > >
> > > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the
> > Arbcom
> > > > noticeboards.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] en.wp office yearlock block

[Peter Southwood]

I would guess that "expertise" is one of them.
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Mister Thrapostibongles
Sent: 12 June 2019 08:58
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] en.wp office yearlock block

George,

There are five things that I claimed the Foundation has and the volunteers
do not:  responsibility to support the community, and the time, the
expertise, the money and the people to do so.  So that's ten assertions.
You claim that some of those are unwarranted.  There are over a thousand
possible interpretations of your claim.  In the interests of a productive
discussion, would you like to be more precise about which assertions you
think might be incorrect, please?

Thrapostibongles

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:22 AM George Herbert 
wrote:

> I think that you are making a number of assertions about the community,
> individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities
> that aren't warranted.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is.  The Foundation has
> > the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise,
> > the money and the people to do so.  Individual volunteers, however
> > well-meaning, do not.  The Foundation has determined that in this
> > particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide the
> > support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to do
> > so, as you would expect.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM Techman224 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > >
> > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they
> weren't
> > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding a
> > > concern to the office. [1]
> > >
> > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> communities
> > > consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but
> > the
> > > Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no complaints on-wiki nor to
> > > Arbcom privately.
> > >
> > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the
> Arbcom
> > > noticeboards.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > > >
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Statement_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > >
> > > Techman224
> > >
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > >
> > > > From: George Herbert 
> > > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > To: English Wikipedia 
> > > > Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> > > >
> > > > In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S blocked English
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > user / administrator Fram for a year and desysopped, for unspecified
> > > > reasons in the Office purview.  There was a brief statement here from
> > > > Office regarding it which gave no details other than that normal
> policy
> > > and
> > > > procedures for Office actions were followed, which under normal
> > > > circumstances preclude public comments.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > >
> > > > Several people on Arbcom and board have commented they're making
> > private
> > > > inquiries under normal reporting and communication channels, due to
> the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] en.wp office yearlock block

[Mister Thrapostibongles]

George,

There are five things that I claimed the Foundation has and the volunteers
do not:  responsibility to support the community, and the time, the
expertise, the money and the people to do so.  So that's ten assertions.
You claim that some of those are unwarranted.  There are over a thousand
possible interpretations of your claim.  In the interests of a productive
discussion, would you like to be more precise about which assertions you
think might be incorrect, please?

Thrapostibongles

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:22 AM George Herbert 
wrote:

> I think that you are making a number of assertions about the community,
> individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities
> that aren't warranted.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is.  The Foundation has
> > the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise,
> > the money and the people to do so.  Individual volunteers, however
> > well-meaning, do not.  The Foundation has determined that in this
> > particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide the
> > support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to do
> > so, as you would expect.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM Techman224 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > >
> > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they
> weren't
> > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding a
> > > concern to the office. [1]
> > >
> > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> communities
> > > consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but
> > the
> > > Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no complaints on-wiki nor to
> > > Arbcom privately.
> > >
> > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the
> Arbcom
> > > noticeboards.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > > >
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Statement_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > >
> > > Techman224
> > >
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > >
> > > > From: George Herbert 
> > > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > To: English Wikipedia 
> > > > Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> > > >
> > > > In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S blocked English
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > user / administrator Fram for a year and desysopped, for unspecified
> > > > reasons in the Office purview.  There was a brief statement here from
> > > > Office regarding it which gave no details other than that normal
> policy
> > > and
> > > > procedures for Office actions were followed, which under normal
> > > > circumstances preclude public comments.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > >
> > > > Several people on Arbcom and board have commented they're making
> > private
> > > > inquiries under normal reporting and communication channels, due to
> the
> > > > oddity and essentially uniqueness of the action.
> > > >
> > > > There was an initial surge of dismay which has mellowed IMHO into
> "Ok,
> > > > responsible people following up".
> > > >
> > > > I understand the sensitivity of some of the topics under Office
> > actions,
> > > > having done OTRS and other various had-to-stay-private stuff myself
> at
> > > > times in the past.  A high profile investigation target is most
> unusual
> > > but
> > > > not unheard of.
> > > >
> > > > I did send email to Fram earlier today asking if they had any public
> > > > comment, no reply as yet.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -george william herbert
> > > > george.herb...@gmail.com
> > > > ___
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] en.wp office yearlock block

[George Herbert]

I think that you are making a number of assertions about the community,
individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities
that aren't warranted.



On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is.  The Foundation has
> the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise,
> the money and the people to do so.  Individual volunteers, however
> well-meaning, do not.  The Foundation has determined that in this
> particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide the
> support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to do
> so, as you would expect.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM Techman224 
> wrote:
>
> > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> >
> > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they weren't
> > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding a
> > concern to the office. [1]
> >
> > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local communities
> > consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but
> the
> > Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no complaints on-wiki nor to
> > Arbcom privately.
> >
> > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the Arbcom
> > noticeboards.
> >
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > >
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > >
> > [2]
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Statement_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> >
> > Techman224
> >
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > >
> > > From: George Herbert 
> > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > To: English Wikipedia 
> > > Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> > >
> > > In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S blocked English
> > Wikipedia
> > > user / administrator Fram for a year and desysopped, for unspecified
> > > reasons in the Office purview.  There was a brief statement here from
> > > Office regarding it which gave no details other than that normal policy
> > and
> > > procedures for Office actions were followed, which under normal
> > > circumstances preclude public comments.
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > >
> > > Several people on Arbcom and board have commented they're making
> private
> > > inquiries under normal reporting and communication channels, due to the
> > > oddity and essentially uniqueness of the action.
> > >
> > > There was an initial surge of dismay which has mellowed IMHO into "Ok,
> > > responsible people following up".
> > >
> > > I understand the sensitivity of some of the topics under Office
> actions,
> > > having done OTRS and other various had-to-stay-private stuff myself at
> > > times in the past.  A high profile investigation target is most unusual
> > but
> > > not unheard of.
> > >
> > > I did send email to Fram earlier today asking if they had any public
> > > comment, no reply as yet.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -george william herbert
> > > george.herb...@gmail.com
> > > ___
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] en.wp office yearlock block

[Mister Thrapostibongles]

Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is.  The Foundation has
the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise,
the money and the people to do so.  Individual volunteers, however
well-meaning, do not.  The Foundation has determined that in this
particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide the
support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to do
so, as you would expect.

Thrapostibongles

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM Techman224  wrote:

> Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
>
> Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they weren't
> consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding a
> concern to the office. [1]
>
> The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local communities
> consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the
> Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no complaints on-wiki nor to
> Arbcom privately.
>
> The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the Arbcom
> noticeboards.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> >
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> >
> [2]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Statement_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
>
> Techman224
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: George Herbert 
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > To: English Wikipedia 
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> >
> > In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S blocked English
> Wikipedia
> > user / administrator Fram for a year and desysopped, for unspecified
> > reasons in the Office purview.  There was a brief statement here from
> > Office regarding it which gave no details other than that normal policy
> and
> > procedures for Office actions were followed, which under normal
> > circumstances preclude public comments.
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> >
> > Several people on Arbcom and board have commented they're making private
> > inquiries under normal reporting and communication channels, due to the
> > oddity and essentially uniqueness of the action.
> >
> > There was an initial surge of dismay which has mellowed IMHO into "Ok,
> > responsible people following up".
> >
> > I understand the sensitivity of some of the topics under Office actions,
> > having done OTRS and other various had-to-stay-private stuff myself at
> > times in the past.  A high profile investigation target is most unusual
> but
> > not unheard of.
> >
> > I did send email to Fram earlier today asking if they had any public
> > comment, no reply as yet.
> >
> >
> > --
> > -george william herbert
> > george.herb...@gmail.com
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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,