Dears, I am reaching out as Wikipedia contributor heavily interested in the growth of our movement and as far as this thread is concerned as a member of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania. We were carefully reading the discussion on this thread and after consideration with the other members from our group, we would like to clarify some of the issues mentioned here. Our comments are not related to any AffCom actual policies or future policy proposals since in our opinion these should be part of another thread and not related to this one. We have applied to be recognized as a user group based on the rules that were active at the time of the application and also have answered questions from the AffCom team. Without further ado here are the main points from our side.
*0. 'similar' previous cases * The majority of the comments in this thread are expressing concerns based on previous case studies in other countries where two UGs were operating. This seems quite judgemental about our work and about what will happen in the future. This is quite surprising for a community like ours (I'm referring to the Wikimedia community in general) where openness and inclusion are promoted intensively by all of us. The concept that everyone is welcome to work with the group of people that feels more productive should be the standard and not the exception also in the Wikimeda community in our opinion. Local or thematic user groups are tools to further grow our movement, and it is not fair to judge by the fact that somewhere members of different user groups had conflicts with each other and as a result not to have user groups that have smaller or bigger differences in their activities. It is just like banning all the knifes in the word because someone in a corner of the world decided to harm someone else using a knife... At our UG we don't know the details of the conflicts of other user groups, but we are sure that when members of one ore more UGs are dedicated to have a conflict with another UG they will find a way to do it. Speaking for our user group we are just a group of Wikimedians that want to contribute to the Wikimedia movement in Albania (where we live) by doing what we know and the way we beoperate. Having said this we would kindly ask not to jump into conclusions for the behavior of user groups based on incidents that have happened elsewhere. *1. differences between UGs * Once again here are two main points to be taken into consideration: *1.1 focus in Albania as a country (not in the language) * One of the important elements of having more than one user group approved is avoiding overlapping of focus. From the comments in this thread it is clear that our focus is Albania geographically and as a country (not linguistically) and at not more than two main areas: GLAM and Wiki in Education! We strongly believe that these areas and the focus at a geographical level are under-served to say at least and there are many many indications that prove this. Regarding the comments about the differences between the two UGs: a similar example would be a Spanish Language UG (if it existed) and Columbia Community UG (that we would assume would contribute to the ES Wikipedia). These two UGs would clearly have many reasons and would be legit to be recognized, just as in our case where Wikimedia Community User Group Albania is focused in activities in Albania (not defined by the language), which we think is more productive due to the dedication in one specific area. Of course since October 2017 when we sent the application to AffCom, but even before when we started working on creating the UG, we wanted to be clear about the main focus of our activities following our strong belief that being focused only in the areas we feel we have expertise would make our work and the final 'product' better. *2. overlapping of activities* There are at least 37 museums listed at the moment in SQ Wikipedia, and hundreds of schools in 36 cities in Albania counting thousands of students and hundreds of teachers. Even if Albania is a small country, there is so much work to be done and any help and engagement of any level is more than welcome. If we all have good intentions and if all active User Groups in the area are positive towards each other it is actually quite easy to avoid overlapping and develop SQ Wikipedia from (only) 75000 articles to hundreds of thousands of more articles. In a few words, there is space for activities from many user groups and even more projects to implement in two areas that we are working on GLAM and Wiki in Education. Up until today here is what we as a user group have done in order to avoid any conflict that would generate overlapping: *- planning activities ahead * All our activities are planned ahead in our monthly meetings and are published accordingly. Any Wikipedian in the area can check the notes and see where is our focus in the next months and avoid overlapping. *- transparency * documenting note meetings in meta pages where everyone can clearly see what we are planning ahead and what we have done so far. Again if any UG or concerned wikimedian is interested in not having overlapping activities a simple check would do the work. *3. potential conflict between two UGs* During our monthly UG meetings we have agreed that we will work on avoiding conflicts which will create an unpleasant situation for the Wikimdia Movement in Albania. An example that shows our efforts on avoiding conflicts is the fact that although members of our user group have worked previously for the organization of Wiki Loves Monuments competition, we asked members of the the other user group (WoALUG) if we can host it. In their answer they informed us that they wanted to organize it and after the response we stepped down. Another example is Open Source Conference Albania, the yearly conference where we wanted to be present with our User Group with an info booth, but since the other user group applied for the booth we again stepped down in order to avoid any unpleasant discussions and avoid confusion to the public. We could also add the fact that activities from our user group are actually less promoted by the SQ Wikipedia twitter account, but again we have not initiated any discussion that could be a potential conflict between user groups. *4. respecting policies from AffCom* Before applying we checked carefully the AffCom policy for naming of the user group, logo, CoC and of course other policies defined by AffCom. Our application was prepared with total respect to these policies which we followed and still do. Last but not least, we would like to stress out the fact that after almost a year of being active, in our knowledge there have NOT been any concerns officially addressed to us from any user group. Even if this happens we would be more than willing to either not get involved in the same projects and do our best to facilitate the process of finding a solution. Sincerely, we started our user group as a way of contributing to the growth of Wikimedia Movement in Albania, a place where we also live and contribute at social level, with people that we respect and work collectively in a productive way. We are willing to spend a lot of volunteer time to move the movement forward in collaboration with public institutions that are willing to empower the commons in the Republic of Albania. While doing so we are also open to any UG that want to collaborate in the thematic areas and country we operate based on our UG description. The open source and open knowledge movement has proved since day one that remixing, forking, sharing resources and improving upon each others work generates progress for all of us, which is basically true if you see that there is quite some growth in terms of activities (from both UGs mentioned here) in SQ Wikipedia since our group got recognition. Again there are so many projects that can be implemented and there is space for as many people as possible! Representing Wikimedia Community User Group Albania Silva Arapi. > From: Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <f...@yandex.com> > Date: Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:43 PM > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of Wikimedia Community > User Group Albania > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > Dear colleagues, > > Cooperation with external entities is best organized through either > national chapters or thematic organizations, which should be predominantly > self-supporting, thus quasi-independent from WMF. I support Kiril's advice > that WoALUG should be evolving towards a Wikimedia thematic organization, > whilst our WCUGA colleagues in Albania should consider evolving towards a > national chapter (thus stepping out of WoALUG's way in anything that has to > do with ethnic language and culture matters). > > At the same time, emails below don't seem to provide good enough reasons > to force transformation of a recognized UG into a national chapter or > thematic organization before they are ready to make that leap, even if > having these structures is very important for the ongoing sustainability of > the movement. I am happy to see that our Thai colleagues seem to have > reached this stage > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Chapters_in_discussion_phase > > UGs are a wonderful tool for greater engagement of volunteers, supporting > their desire to take greater steps, so the trend for approving new UGs is > probably there for good (every city, sub-region or sub-topic being > eligible). Keeping the door open is important, just like the chance to fail > and get de-recognized. May I remind you that harmony within the community > of Wikimedia volunteers is more important than the destiny of whatever > Wikimedia affiliate, whose main function is a shell that brings together > and gives some recognized identity to local volunteers' that run own > projects. > > regards, > farhad > > -- > Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 / > skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan > > > 25.02.2019, 17:09, "Kiril Simeonovski" <kiril.simeonov...@gmail.com>: > > Hi Greta, > > > > Thank you for the explanation. > > > > This reminds me a lot to what happened in Macedonia, albeit with > different > > names of the recognised user groups. The artificially created problem by > > the Aff Com has eventually ended up in two user groups being eligible for > > WMF grants (another contentious decision), then a raising concern that > the > > WMF can not extend funds to two user groups in a small country serving > > community with a small number of speakers and finally a substantial > > reduction of the annual grants approved for 2019 and threat that no > grants > > will be extended for 2020 if the conflict does not get resolved. My kind > > advice for you is to start thinking about external funding for the next > > budget year (though it is not an easy task in our region) because this is > > something that the WMF might do for Albania as well. > > > > I also strongly agree with Paulo that we need to start thinking about > > preventing this from happening in the future. The problem is not only > that > > people do not care about the consequences from their decisions in a > > volunteer community but that they just bagger off after complicating > things > > and simply leave the issue to be solved by the volunteers who did not > want > > it to happen. I was thinking about introducing a complaint process on > Meta > > where people from the communities can directly complain about similar > > instances of problems created by the WMF, the Aff Com, the grantmaking > > committees or any other decision-making party. Frankly speaking, my > > impression is that the movement migrates from decisions about big things > > made through community-based discussions to a centralised decision-making > > process made entirely within the WMF or the committees that do not seem > to > > serve all communities equally. > > > > Best, > > Kiril > > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:17 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi Greta, > >> > >> Thank you very much for your clarifications and insight into this > question. > >> > >> This is very similar with what happened in Brazil, when the 2013 > >> chapter-like UG (Grupo de Usuários Wikimedia no Brasil) and its clone > UG > >> (Wiki Educação Brasil) approved by AffCom in 2015 ended up competing > for > >> the same activities and partnerships. > >> > >> Hopefully this time AffCom will not have the reckless approach they had > >> with Brazil, extinguishing both groups to try to solve a problem they > >> created themselves, and our wikimedian friends from Albania and > Albanian > >> Language will be spared the destruction of their community. > >> > >> I believe that we, as the broad community, really should do something > to > >> prevent this kind of thing which is mining and destroying parts of the > >> Wikimedia Movement. It is not possible that we have to stay here > quietly > >> seeing AffCom dealing with all those cases in such an incompetent and > >> reckless way. If it's obviously not working, why keep it that way? > >> > >> Best, > >> Paulo > >> > >> Greta Doçi <gretad...@gmail.com> escreveu no dia segunda, 25/02/2019 > à(s) > >> 12:34: > >> > >> > Dear everyone, > >> > > >> > First, we want to thank everyone who contributed in this discussion. > >> > > >> > We want to start with the first conflict, which is the name. If you > read > >> > carefully Affcon's email above, and you check the info online as > claimed > >> by > >> > Affcon, you will see that actually Affcon itself has confused both UG > >> > names, crediting events to the other UG, that actually are done by > our > >> UG ( > >> > WoALUG > >> > < > >> > > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Albanian_Language_User_Group > >> > >) > >> > and vice versa. > >> > > >> > After the new UG was recognized and people started raising questions > in > >> > this thread, we received an email by Affcon to explain to them what > we > >> > thought was the overlapping. We did send our activities and > explained why > >> > we thought there was overlapping. Reading Camelias and Sami email > above, > >> > clearly that email was ignored. > >> > > >> > Exactly during the time that the new UG was applying, the old one > >> (WoALUG) > >> > was applying for the annual simple grant, which btw took us at least > 4 > >> > months to complete, all our activities in Albania were clearly > stated, > >> and > >> > GLAM and EDUCATION were our main goals. There are also institutions > >> > mentioned and details of what we wanted to do in Albania. So, > claiming > >> that > >> > theres no overlapping of activities is not valid. > >> > > >> > WoALUG goes beyond Albania or Kosovo, because some Albanian > contributors > >> > who don't live in Albania created it at the first place, so we wish > we > >> can > >> > help Albanian speakers in diaspora to continue to contribute, and if > they > >> > need information, sources or whatever, our team present in Albania, > >> Kosova, > >> > Macedonia, or Arberesh in Italy, will use our resources to make that > >> > happen. Our UG means to be inclusive of what is a small Wikimedia > >> language > >> > community anyways. > >> > > >> > GLAM and Education institutions are depended on public institutions. > To > >> > collaborate with an institution, let's say Historic Museum of > Albania, > >> you > >> > need to get permission from the Ministry of Culture. Think about the > >> > scenario (which is currently happening): one UG requests to > collaborate > >> > with Museum of Elbasan and the other UG want to collaborate with > Museum > >> of > >> > Tirana, both should sent the request to Ministry of Culture. > Wikipedia > >> is a > >> > new thing (still) in Albania, considering that is already hard to > >> establish > >> > collaborations with public institutions, confusing the UGs will > result in > >> > bad outcome for both UGs. > >> > > >> > And of course, for the other private institutions, it is a > competition > >> who > >> > is going to contact them first. > >> > > >> > Splitting institutions is also not an option because for sure we > will aim > >> > the same ones, since there's not that many of them. > >> > > >> > We were confused, we still are and none of our members have the time > to > >> > follow this even after a year. > >> > > >> > on behalf of Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group > >> > < > >> > > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Albanian_Language_User_Group > >> > > > >> > . > >> > > >> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:30 PM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin > < > >> > f...@yandex.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Dear Kiril and Paulo, > >> > > Thank you for explanations. > >> > > > >> > > You have my deepest respect for showing your concern for our fellow > >> > > colleagues from Albania, so they avoid repeating the mistakes that > have > >> > > been made previously elsewhere. Just like you, I certainly hope > that > >> our > >> > > volunteer-colleagues serving in AffCom did their best to assess and > >> > > minimize possible risks that might come in case of competition. As > for > >> > > Albanian language & Albania centered multilingual UGs, let's hope > they > >> > are > >> > > getting along well and work hand in hand on the aspects in which > they > >> can > >> > > help advancing each other's missions. > >> > > > >> > > Our current situation is actually encouraging us to consider > developing > >> > > Russian-speaking UGs in all regions of Russia, and my home Republic > >> might > >> > > be one of the first ones where this will be useful. Our chapter > consist > >> > of > >> > > representatives of various Wikimedia projects, languages & ethnic > >> groups, > >> > > but our weakness is rather low regional representation and > empowerment, > >> > > which we hope to balance through UGs. The world is in constant > flux, so > >> > > eventually we might also witness similar competition for attention > that > >> > you > >> > > are talking about. We currently don't seem to have reasons for > conflict > >> > > between Wikimedia Russia chapter and Russian & other language or > >> > > territorial UGs because: > >> > > * UGs have representatives in the national chapter > >> > > * National chapter meetings are broadcast live on YouTube, > >> > > * Chapter leadership prioritizes country-wide tasks of importance > for > >> > > growing the movement, > >> > > * Wikimedia projects in Russian and other languages are not that > famous > >> > > yet, > >> > > * neither affiliates, nor individuals in Russia get their grant > >> requests > >> > > approved by WMF (there are reasons for that), and > >> > > * Russian language is teaching us to be anarchic inside (affiliate > >> > > structures are nothing more than just legal tools), whilst locals > have > >> > > centuries-old history of living together in Hunnic Empire, Cumania, > >> > > Mongolic Empire, Golden Horde, Russian Empire, Soviet Union & now > >> Russian > >> > > Federation (something we remember despite the fact that Golden > Horde > >> and > >> > > earlier ones don't get much coverage in high-school history > courses). > >> > > > >> > > regards, > >> > > farhad > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ > >> Тел.+79274158066 / > >> > > skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 15.02.2019, 17:37, "Paulo Santos Perneta" <paulospern...@gmail.com > >: > >> > > > Hi Farhad, > >> > > > > >> > > > It is very easily understood by the so called Brazilian scenario: > >> > > > > >> > > > Step 1 - AffCom recognizes a chapter style UG, with geographic > focus > >> > > > Step 2 - Dissidents from first group start warring first UG while > >> > > > attempting to form a second UG, clone of the first UG > >> > > > Step 3 - AffCom recognizes second UG > >> > > > Step 4 - Conflict between UGs dramatically increases with time, > >> > spreading > >> > > > into the Wikimedia projects > >> > > > Step 5 - AffCom dissolves both UGs > >> > > > > >> > > > Current status: No recognized Wikimedia community in the country > >> > > > > >> > > > My opinion: Terrible disservice by AffCom to the Wikimedia > Movement. > >> > > > > >> > > > Best, > >> > > > Paulo > >> > > > > >> > > > Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <f...@yandex.com> escreveu > no > >> dia > >> > > > sexta, 15/02/2019 à(s) 10:59: > >> > > > > >> > > >> Dear Kiril, Philip and colleagues, > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Please explain the nature of reasons that cause trouble in > having > >> > > multiple > >> > > >> Wikimedia affiliates in the area, as this seems to be context > >> > specific. > >> > > >> It's possible that our context in Russia is very different, > which > >> is > >> > > why > >> > > >> we are actually welcoming creation of new UGs throughout the > >> country, > >> > > both > >> > > >> territorially and thematically oriented ones (on top of the > >> Wikimedia > >> > > >> Russia national chapter). > >> > > >> Should you give more reasons why this seems causing conflict, I > >> > might. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Over here we are quite happy with existing collaboration at all > >> > levels > >> > > and > >> > > >> are even looking forward to developing a mechanism to speed up > >> their > >> > > >> formation throughout the country - namely > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Languages_of_Russia_Community_User_Group > >> > > >> Myself and other representatives of Wikimedia Russia discussed > this > >> > in > >> > > >> detail and welcomed by AffCom secretary during Wikimania 2017 > >> > > >> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Frhdkazan/Wikimania2017#Aug.12 > >> > > And > >> > > >> in the framework of https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Smart_region > >> > > >> initiative, I will eventually proceed to registering a > >> > > Tatarstan-oriented > >> > > >> thematic multilingual UG, on top of recently registered > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_of_Tatar_language_User_Group > >> > > >> & Wikimedia Russia, in both of which I am currently a member. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> regards, > >> > > >> farhad > >> > > >> > >> > > >> -- > >> > > >> Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ > >> > > Тел.+79274158066 / > >> > > >> skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan > >> > > >> > >> > > >> 14.02.2019, 03:25, "Kiril Simeonovski" < > >> kiril.simeonov...@gmail.com > >> > >: > >> > > >> > Hi Paulo, > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Camelia's paragraph that you referred to tells a story that is > >> > > exactly > >> > > >> the > >> > > >> > opposite of what the Affiliations Committee is doing in > practice. > >> > The > >> > > >> > so-called 'Brazilian scenario' emerged in Macedonia when, in > >> 2016, > >> > > the > >> > > >> > committee decided to recognise a second user group on the same > >> > > territory > >> > > >> > without consulting the existing one. This has eventually > >> developed > >> > > into a > >> > > >> > problem regarding the overlap in the scope of the two user > groups > >> > > and the > >> > > >> > resolution was normally sought from the people (more > importantly > >> > > >> > volunteers) who were not willing this to happen. It should be > >> also > >> > > noted > >> > > >> > that Macedonia is a country with only 2 million inhabitants > >> unlike > >> > > >> Brazil's > >> > > >> > over 200 million and this has been mentioned numerous times by > >> > > different > >> > > >> > people in the movement to refer to the severity of the > problem. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > My opinion is that the Affiliations Committee has no vision on > >> the > >> > > future > >> > > >> > of the Wikimedia movement and their main efficiency indicator > is > >> > the > >> > > >> number > >> > > >> > of user groups they recognise with no care about the > >> consequencies > >> > > of the > >> > > >> > apparent wrongdoing. They managed to bring the tally to over > 100 > >> > user > >> > > >> > groups and the Wikimedia Foundation even got engaged to > celebrate > >> > > this > >> > > >> > achievement, while they did not give a damn about the problems > >> that > >> > > they > >> > > >> > have posed with their light-minded routine. Moreover, when you > >> > > approach > >> > > >> > them with some relevant questions, they simply brush off and > >> > respond > >> > > >> with a > >> > > >> > months-long delay. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > In conclusion, the Affiliations Committee is artificially > >> creating > >> > > >> problems > >> > > >> > as a result of their recognition policy and is seeking > resolution > >> > > from > >> > > >> > volunteers that were not consulted at all about the potential > >> > > >> > consequencies. This is a waste of volunteer time and efforts > for > >> > > >> something > >> > > >> > that could have easily been prevented. Unfortunately, the > >> Wikimedia > >> > > >> > Foundation and some other voices in the movement contribute to > >> this > >> > > >> misery > >> > > >> > and it is highly unprobable that any complaint to any one in > the > >> > > movement > >> > > >> > would pay off. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Best regards, > >> > > >> > Kiril > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On сре., 13 фев. 2019 г. at 16:13 Paulo Santos Perneta < > >> > > >> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> Hello, > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> camelia boban <camelia.bo...@gmail.com> escreveu no dia > terça, > >> > > >> 12/02/2019 > >> > > >> >> à(s) 11:18: > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > (...) > >> > > >> >> > In line with the philosophy of the inclusion of the > movement, > >> > > AffCom > >> > > >> has > >> > > >> >> > acted as it always does when it receives affiliation > requests: > >> > it > >> > > >> >> assesses > >> > > >> >> > the territorial overlap and the declared purpose of the > >> requests > >> > > with > >> > > >> >> > others affiliates present in the territory, contacting the > >> > already > >> > > >> >> > recognized affiliates to hear from them about any concerns, > >> > using > >> > > the > >> > > >> >> > experience and knowledge on the territory of each of its > >> > members. > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> I suppose this was not in effect back in 2015, when Wiki > >> Education > >> > > >> Brazil > >> > > >> >> was approved, as neither the existing affiliate in Brazil - > UG > >> > > >> Wikimedia > >> > > >> >> in Brazil -, nor Wikimedia Portugal, have been consulted > about > >> it, > >> > > even > >> > > >> >> when it totally overlapped with the territory of the existing > >> > > >> affiliate in > >> > > >> >> Brazil, and was announced by AffCom as having a Lusophone > >> target, > >> > > >> therefore > >> > > >> >> interfering in Portugal as well. Furthermore, at the date it > was > >> > > >> approved, > >> > > >> >> Wiki Education Brazil was already in open conflict with the > >> > existing > >> > > >> >> affiliate in Brazil, which makes the approval decision by > AffCom > >> > > >> absolutely > >> > > >> >> incomprehensible. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> Actually, I really fail to understand why the candidatures to > >> > AffCom > >> > > >> >> continue allowed to be proposed in absolute secrecy, leaving > any > >> > > >> problems > >> > > >> >> caused by their approvals to be dealt with by the community > >> after > >> > > the > >> > > >> >> problem is already installed. Does not seem a very clever > way of > >> > > >> acting. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> Best, > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> Paulo - DarwIn > >> > > >> >> Wikimedia Portugal > >> > > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> > > >> >> 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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
