Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

[Amir Sarabadani]

Here's my 2c:
Calling gay people "subhuman" is so vile that needs direct action from
outside of the wiki but IMO this is a symptom of a larger issue.

The issue is that different wikis are disconnected and don't have proper
oversight by a central (volunteer-based) authority.
This sometimes lead to different languages having biases that are related
to the culture and this is sorta okay-ish specially if the wiki is big
enough to balance the differences. Let me give you several examples:
* In Arabic Wikipedia name of the water body south of Iran/North of UAE is
"Arabian gulf" but in Persian Wikipedia is "Persian gulf". This basically
means different versioning of the same entity. I don't like this because
what makes Wikipedia great is that you don't get personalized articles,
like article of "Abortion" in English Wikipedia is the same regardless of
what your stand on this matter is. This differentiates Wikipedia from
facebook and twitter that put people in bubbles.
* In smaller wikis the issue gets worse. What bothered me for a very long
time was that article of "Mohammad" was "Mohammad peace be upon him" [1]
until 27 March of 2018 [2]. When the title is so biased towards the
religious point of view, how neutral the article itself is?
* The issue can different shapes too. I can find lots of
copyright-violating pictures in small wikis. Most of these pictures are
copyright violation [3] We have global sysops and SWMT but it's more of a
reactionary mentality.
* Language barrier makes things even harder. Just imagine how harder it
would be to react if the above discussion happened in Amharic instead of
English.

Maybe it's more a feature than a bug. For example, in Persian Wikipedia
several articles in controversial topics that are featured (homosexuality,
and some articles about Baha'i's faith) are not being used in the main page
to avoid controversy and blockade of Wikipedia in Iran. As the person who
wrote most of one of those articles, I disagree but I understand and
respect the community's decision.

I just want to point out to the issue and I have no solutions. Stewards
seem like a good fit to apply fleet-side norms like no discrimination
policy.

Also, I don't have anything against mzn and urwikis, these are happen to
languages that I have basic understanding of.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_be_upon_him
[2]:
https://ur.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B5:%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B4%D8%AA%DB%81=%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF+%D8%A8%D9%86+%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%DB%81=en
[3]:
https://mzn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B4%D8%A7:%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1_%D8%AC%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%AF

Sorry for the long email.

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:53 PM Vi to  wrote:

> By the way, please do not intervene en masse. They (the user involved) have
> a strong tendency towards using "colonialism" as a general purpose excuse
> for their action, as I experienced myself a bunch of months ago, along with
> a series of references to Italian invasion of Ethiopia.
> This kind of excuse is easily is fed by this kind of intervention. Talkpage
> contents is a trivial matter compared to insults and abuse of
> administrative privileges. While the latter one is solved the first one is
> yet to be handled.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno lun 7 gen 2019 alle ore 15:56 James Heilman 
> ha
> scritto:
>
> > While we give individual languages / projects a great deal of autonomy,
> > they are not completely autonomous and remain accountable to our global
> > norms. We have a shared brand to uphold. Glad to see a strong position
> has
> > been taken by the community against discrimination based on sexual
> > orientation.
> >
> > My 2 cents
> > James
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:39 AM Ariel Glenn WMF 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > A note that the user's talk page
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://am.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%8A%A0%E1%89%A3%E1%88%8D_%E1%8B%8D%E1%8B%AD%E1%8B%AD%E1%89%B5:Codex_Sinaiticus
> > > may or may not reflect all of the comments made at any given moment,
> > since
> > > the user has been engaged in deleting large parts of the discussion.
> > You'll
> > > want to double-check the history to see what's been written.
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > ___
> > 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] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

[Vi to]

By the way, please do not intervene en masse. They (the user involved) have
a strong tendency towards using "colonialism" as a general purpose excuse
for their action, as I experienced myself a bunch of months ago, along with
a series of references to Italian invasion of Ethiopia.
This kind of excuse is easily is fed by this kind of intervention. Talkpage
contents is a trivial matter compared to insults and abuse of
administrative privileges. While the latter one is solved the first one is
yet to be handled.

Vito

Il giorno lun 7 gen 2019 alle ore 15:56 James Heilman  ha
scritto:

> While we give individual languages / projects a great deal of autonomy,
> they are not completely autonomous and remain accountable to our global
> norms. We have a shared brand to uphold. Glad to see a strong position has
> been taken by the community against discrimination based on sexual
> orientation.
>
> My 2 cents
> James
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:39 AM Ariel Glenn WMF 
> wrote:
>
> > A note that the user's talk page
> >
> >
> https://am.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%8A%A0%E1%89%A3%E1%88%8D_%E1%8B%8D%E1%8B%AD%E1%8B%AD%E1%89%B5:Codex_Sinaiticus
> > may or may not reflect all of the comments made at any given moment,
> since
> > the user has been engaged in deleting large parts of the discussion.
> You'll
> > want to double-check the history to see what's been written.
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

[James Heilman]

While we give individual languages / projects a great deal of autonomy,
they are not completely autonomous and remain accountable to our global
norms. We have a shared brand to uphold. Glad to see a strong position has
been taken by the community against discrimination based on sexual
orientation.

My 2 cents
James

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 6:39 AM Ariel Glenn WMF  wrote:

> A note that the user's talk page
>
> https://am.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%8A%A0%E1%89%A3%E1%88%8D_%E1%8B%8D%E1%8B%AD%E1%8B%AD%E1%89%B5:Codex_Sinaiticus
> may or may not reflect all of the comments made at any given moment, since
> the user has been engaged in deleting large parts of the discussion. You'll
> want to double-check the history to see what's been written.
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
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] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

[Ariel Glenn WMF]

A note that the user's talk page
https://am.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%8A%A0%E1%89%A3%E1%88%8D_%E1%8B%8D%E1%8B%AD%E1%8B%AD%E1%89%B5:Codex_Sinaiticus
may or may not reflect all of the comments made at any given moment, since
the user has been engaged in deleting large parts of the discussion. You'll
want to double-check the history to see what's been written.
___
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] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

[Fæ]

Thanks TS for making an initial statement. Hopefully this case
sets a useful precedent to ensure everyone is a bit clearer on
processes to follow and what is the best advice to offer complainants
who suffer discriminatory sysop actions on Wikimedia projects.
Certainly it has reinforced my view that Wikimedians need affiliates
like the WM-LGBT+ user group to maintain off-wiki channels where
members of minority groups can be confident of a safe space to ask
questions, or just vent their frustration, and not feel alone when
they encounter problems on our projects.[1]

In addition to investigating this case, I recommend that TS
review the WMF terms of use which fail to align with the 2006 WMF
board resolution against discrimination.[2][3] Though the ToU do
include "Harassing and Abusing Others", it does not explicitly spell
out that using the projects in to create a hostile environment which
actively promotes discrimination against minority groups is not
allowed.

The Amharic Wikipedia (am.wp) case is one where sysop tools have been
used to promote homophobic views, the evidence is unarguable, and
those of us within the WM-LGBT+ community have no doubt that the (ex)
sysop should be banned. On investigation it is clear that am.wp lacks
any LGBT+ related articles, even simple neutral articles about
homosexuality or the history of anti-LGBT+ law in Ethiopia are
missing. It seems likely that the project has been dominated by the
promotion of homophobic views, to the extent that this is such a
expressly hostile environment, that nobody would attempt to improve
LGBT+ related content, let alone expect to be treated as a colleague
there if they are openly LGBT+ themselves.

Everyone should be aware that expressing views such these by the
previously trusted administrator Codex_Sinaiticus (aka Til
Eulenspiegel) below which are used to attack and dehumanise other
contributors, are so extreme and blatantly against our shared values
to provide a non-hostile collegiate environment for Wikimedia
volunteers, that they should fully expect blocks and site bans to be
supported by the wider community, no matter what language project they
are contributing to:
* "Don't force your sick values on Ethiopia - you will regret it! Til
Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:31, 7 ጃንዩዌሪ 2019 (UTC)"
* "No, actually homosexuals are considered subhuman by the vast
majority of Ethiopians. Removing my management with no warning or
appeal is typical hamfistedness, like Ethiopia dealt with in 1936.! .
Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:45, 7 ጃንዩዌሪ 2019 (UTC)"

Summary of events:
# QueerEcofeminist is a long term contributor on other projects who
discovers they are blocked by Codex_Sinaiticus on am.wp without
warning, a Wikipedia project they have never edited. The block
rationale is that their account name is unacceptable against policy,
no policy is ever provided in later discussion.[5]
# QueerEcofeminist asks the administrator about the block on their
am.wp user talk page, in reply their user talk page is deleted
(@16:16, 6 January 2019), making it clear that the block cannot be
discussed. 4 minutes later their block is amended to deny user talk
page access.[5]
# QueerEcofeminist asks for views on the WM-LGBT+ Telegram group, as a
result with QueerEcofeminist's permission this public thread
requesting more views is raised on Wikipedia-l and WMF T & S is
emailed asking to examine the case as one of using the projects for
discrimination.
# Meta steward Teles is part of the Telegram group, and offers to
engage with the blocking administrator. After a brief discussion their
am.wp account is locally blocked by Codex_Sinaiticus.[7]
# Codex_Sinaiticus continues part of the discussion on their talk page
as Til_Eulenspiegel, an alternate account. Later the accounts are
cross linked which makes this clearer.
# Meta steward MarcoAurelio intervenes and removes sysop and
bureaucrat rights from Codex_Sinaiticus's account due to misuse while
engaged in a dispute and removes the block of Teles.
# Codex_Sinaiticus starts to remove discussion from their talk page,
apparently attempting to censor views by calling it harassment.[8]

Links:
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT
2. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
3. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Nondiscrimination
(2006) "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against
current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race,
color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual
orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics."
4. 
https://am.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%8A%A0%E1%89%A3%E1%88%8D_%E1%8B%8D%E1%8B%AD%E1%8B%AD%E1%89%B5:Codex_Sinaiticus
5. Block log: 
https://am.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E1%88%8D%E1%8B%A9:Logpage=User%3AQueerEcofeministtype=block
6. Attempted civil discussion:
https://am.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%8A%A0%E1%89%A3%E1%88%8D_%E1%8B%8D%E1%8B%AD%E1%8B%AD%E1%89%B5:Codex_Sinaiticus#QueerEcofeminist_block
7. Block log: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

[Kalliope Tsouroupidou]

Hello from the Trust and Safety Team at the Wikimedia Foundation,

First of all, we want to thank the community members alerting us of the
situation through several private notes on the matter that have reached us
over the past few days. Special thanks also go out to Pine and Risker for
their efforts in analysing the situation in this thread.

The situation outlined here appears to be both complex with several years
of history and concerning, and is certainly one that Trust & Safety is
looking at in exploring appropriate actions on our side. As always, please
do keep in mind that we are not a team mandated for fast reaction (except
for situations involving threats of harm, which are handled under a
different protocol, as many of you probably know already). For that reason,
we are inclined to review this thoroughly and act correctly, rather than
quickly. Please understand that while our team is already working on
understanding the intricacies of the situation itself while supporting the
affected individual, we will not be able to publicly share information
about the progress or outcome of our review for privacy reasons. Meanwhile,
our review and any potential outcome deriving from it, should not prevent
the community from continuing to take actions as they see fit and in
accordance to project policies, of course.

Also, bear in mind that we do not systematically monitor the Wikimedia
mailing lists, and may miss information shared about this on such moving
forward. If anyone feels they are in possession of pertinent information
that is worth considering in our review of this case, they are encouraged
to reach out to us directly at our established team inbox: c...@wikimedia.org.

Once again, thank you all for being vigilant.

Warm regards and best wishes for 2019,

K.

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 1:04 PM Vi to  wrote:

> The lobby of high voltage warning signs disagrees.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno lun 7 gen 2019 alle ore 11:37 Yaroslav Blanter  >
> ha scritto:
>
> > Well, in 2019 people should already have come to the notion that blocking
> > locally an acting steward is not really a good idea.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:21 AM Vi to  wrote:
> >
> > > Because of a truly great idea
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://am.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E1%88%8D%E1%8B%A9:Log/block=%E1%8A%A0%E1%89%A3%E1%88%8D%3ATeles
> > > >
> > > the involved user's admin/bureaucrat access was revoked
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=rights==Codex+Sinaiticus%40amwiki===
> > > >
> > > by Marco Aurelio.
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno lun 7 gen 2019 alle ore 11:02 Amir Sarabadani <
> > > ladsgr...@gmail.com>
> > > ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > Given the response on the talk page [1] I think it's clear violation
> of
> > > > nondiscrimination policy [2]
> > > >
> > > > [1] "promotion of homosexuality will not be tolerated here nor will
> it
> > be
> > > > forced down our throats to suit anyone's international political
> agenda
> > > if
> > > > you expect Ethiopians to take part."
> > > > [2]
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Nondiscrimination
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, 23:09 Risker  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >  I note that we are talking about the block of one single user on
> one
> > > > > single project; this particular account has thousands of edits over
> > > > about a
> > > > > dozen projects, but is "attached" to hundreds of Wikimedia
> projects.
> > > The
> > > > > majority of these "attached" accounts are likely because the editor
> > > > > "visited" the various projects while logged in, activating the
> > > automatic
> > > > > account creation algorithm.  The account was created 8 years ago,
> and
> > > has
> > > > > actively edited a wide variety of  projects, including several
> > > > wikipedias,
> > > > > Commons, Wikidata, and Meta. While English Wikipedia is the
> account's
> > > > > "home" wiki, about 55% of the account's global edits have been made
> > on
> > > > > Marathi Wikipedia. The Amharic Wikipedia account does not appear to
> > > have
> > > > > edited, which suggests that it was automatically created when the
> > > editor
> > > > > was "looking at" the project on 9  February 2018.  The block for
> > > account
> > > > > name was made on 22 October 2018.  I note that accounts were
> created
> > on
> > > > > over a hundred projects over the course of a few days in February
> > 2018.
> > > > >
> > > > > The point being raised in this thread is that it appears this
> editor
> > > was
> > > > > blocked on one of the 381 wikis on which they have an account,
> > > explicitly
> > > > > because of the perception that their username calls attention to
> the
> > > > sexual
> > > > > behaviour of the editor. What we do not know is (a) whether that is
> > in
> > > > fact
> > > > > a legitimate username block reason on Amharic Wikipedia, or (b) if
> it
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > > > legitimate username block reason, *why* it would 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

[Vi to]

The lobby of high voltage warning signs disagrees.

Vito

Il giorno lun 7 gen 2019 alle ore 11:37 Yaroslav Blanter 
ha scritto:

> Well, in 2019 people should already have come to the notion that blocking
> locally an acting steward is not really a good idea.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:21 AM Vi to  wrote:
>
> > Because of a truly great idea
> > <
> >
> https://am.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E1%88%8D%E1%8B%A9:Log/block=%E1%8A%A0%E1%89%A3%E1%88%8D%3ATeles
> > >
> > the involved user's admin/bureaucrat access was revoked
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=rights==Codex+Sinaiticus%40amwiki===
> > >
> > by Marco Aurelio.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno lun 7 gen 2019 alle ore 11:02 Amir Sarabadani <
> > ladsgr...@gmail.com>
> > ha scritto:
> >
> > > Given the response on the talk page [1] I think it's clear violation of
> > > nondiscrimination policy [2]
> > >
> > > [1] "promotion of homosexuality will not be tolerated here nor will it
> be
> > > forced down our throats to suit anyone's international political agenda
> > if
> > > you expect Ethiopians to take part."
> > > [2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Nondiscrimination
> > >
> > > Best
> > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, 23:09 Risker  wrote:
> > >
> > > >  I note that we are talking about the block of one single user on one
> > > > single project; this particular account has thousands of edits over
> > > about a
> > > > dozen projects, but is "attached" to hundreds of Wikimedia projects.
> > The
> > > > majority of these "attached" accounts are likely because the editor
> > > > "visited" the various projects while logged in, activating the
> > automatic
> > > > account creation algorithm.  The account was created 8 years ago, and
> > has
> > > > actively edited a wide variety of  projects, including several
> > > wikipedias,
> > > > Commons, Wikidata, and Meta. While English Wikipedia is the account's
> > > > "home" wiki, about 55% of the account's global edits have been made
> on
> > > > Marathi Wikipedia. The Amharic Wikipedia account does not appear to
> > have
> > > > edited, which suggests that it was automatically created when the
> > editor
> > > > was "looking at" the project on 9  February 2018.  The block for
> > account
> > > > name was made on 22 October 2018.  I note that accounts were created
> on
> > > > over a hundred projects over the course of a few days in February
> 2018.
> > > >
> > > > The point being raised in this thread is that it appears this editor
> > was
> > > > blocked on one of the 381 wikis on which they have an account,
> > explicitly
> > > > because of the perception that their username calls attention to the
> > > sexual
> > > > behaviour of the editor. What we do not know is (a) whether that is
> in
> > > fact
> > > > a legitimate username block reason on Amharic Wikipedia, or (b) if it
> > is
> > > a
> > > > legitimate username block reason, *why* it would be a username block
> > > > reason. We don't know why this block was applied so long after the
> > > account
> > > > was created. We don't know the username policy on Amharic Wikipedia,
> > nor
> > > do
> > > > we know how it is applied; for example, we don't know if a username
> > like
> > > > "StraightGuy101" would be blocked.  We do know that there are only 4
> > > > administrators on Amharic Wikipedia, and that there are fewer than 50
> > > > active users working on the project, which may be part of the reason
> > for
> > > > the delay between automatic account creation and the account block.
> > > >
> > > > We also know that one of the challenges of single user login for all
> > > > Wikimedia projects has highlighted the fact that certain usernames
> that
> > > are
> > > > acceptable on some projects are blocked on other projects; we've
> known
> > > that
> > > > for years. We know that each project establishes its own policies
> when
> > it
> > > > comes to usernames. There are legitimate reasons why a username that
> is
> > > > acceptable in one language is not acceptable in another language,
> even
> > in
> > > > cases where the editor had no knowledge that the chosen username
> would
> > > be a
> > > > problem in another language. We do know that there have been lots of
> > > cases
> > > > where usernames have been blocked for "username policy violation" on
> > all
> > > > kinds of projects, despite the account operating productively on
> other
> > > > projects.
> > > >
> > > > I also note that there is nothing in this thread that confirms the
> > editor
> > > > themself has raised any concerns about this block, and I am always
> wary
> > > of
> > > > turning an editor into a "martyr for a cause" without their direct
> > > > agreement, as that can be as abusive as the original action. So the
> > first
> > > > step in this situation would be to confirm with the individual editor
> > > > whether or not they want their "case" to be examined.
> > > >
> > > > Should the editor be agreeable, I suggest 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Well, in 2019 people should already have come to the notion that blocking
locally an acting steward is not really a good idea.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:21 AM Vi to  wrote:

> Because of a truly great idea
> <
> https://am.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E1%88%8D%E1%8B%A9:Log/block=%E1%8A%A0%E1%89%A3%E1%88%8D%3ATeles
> >
> the involved user's admin/bureaucrat access was revoked
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=rights==Codex+Sinaiticus%40amwiki===
> >
> by Marco Aurelio.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno lun 7 gen 2019 alle ore 11:02 Amir Sarabadani <
> ladsgr...@gmail.com>
> ha scritto:
>
> > Given the response on the talk page [1] I think it's clear violation of
> > nondiscrimination policy [2]
> >
> > [1] "promotion of homosexuality will not be tolerated here nor will it be
> > forced down our throats to suit anyone's international political agenda
> if
> > you expect Ethiopians to take part."
> > [2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Nondiscrimination
> >
> > Best
> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, 23:09 Risker  wrote:
> >
> > >  I note that we are talking about the block of one single user on one
> > > single project; this particular account has thousands of edits over
> > about a
> > > dozen projects, but is "attached" to hundreds of Wikimedia projects.
> The
> > > majority of these "attached" accounts are likely because the editor
> > > "visited" the various projects while logged in, activating the
> automatic
> > > account creation algorithm.  The account was created 8 years ago, and
> has
> > > actively edited a wide variety of  projects, including several
> > wikipedias,
> > > Commons, Wikidata, and Meta. While English Wikipedia is the account's
> > > "home" wiki, about 55% of the account's global edits have been made on
> > > Marathi Wikipedia. The Amharic Wikipedia account does not appear to
> have
> > > edited, which suggests that it was automatically created when the
> editor
> > > was "looking at" the project on 9  February 2018.  The block for
> account
> > > name was made on 22 October 2018.  I note that accounts were created on
> > > over a hundred projects over the course of a few days in February 2018.
> > >
> > > The point being raised in this thread is that it appears this editor
> was
> > > blocked on one of the 381 wikis on which they have an account,
> explicitly
> > > because of the perception that their username calls attention to the
> > sexual
> > > behaviour of the editor. What we do not know is (a) whether that is in
> > fact
> > > a legitimate username block reason on Amharic Wikipedia, or (b) if it
> is
> > a
> > > legitimate username block reason, *why* it would be a username block
> > > reason. We don't know why this block was applied so long after the
> > account
> > > was created. We don't know the username policy on Amharic Wikipedia,
> nor
> > do
> > > we know how it is applied; for example, we don't know if a username
> like
> > > "StraightGuy101" would be blocked.  We do know that there are only 4
> > > administrators on Amharic Wikipedia, and that there are fewer than 50
> > > active users working on the project, which may be part of the reason
> for
> > > the delay between automatic account creation and the account block.
> > >
> > > We also know that one of the challenges of single user login for all
> > > Wikimedia projects has highlighted the fact that certain usernames that
> > are
> > > acceptable on some projects are blocked on other projects; we've known
> > that
> > > for years. We know that each project establishes its own policies when
> it
> > > comes to usernames. There are legitimate reasons why a username that is
> > > acceptable in one language is not acceptable in another language, even
> in
> > > cases where the editor had no knowledge that the chosen username would
> > be a
> > > problem in another language. We do know that there have been lots of
> > cases
> > > where usernames have been blocked for "username policy violation" on
> all
> > > kinds of projects, despite the account operating productively on other
> > > projects.
> > >
> > > I also note that there is nothing in this thread that confirms the
> editor
> > > themself has raised any concerns about this block, and I am always wary
> > of
> > > turning an editor into a "martyr for a cause" without their direct
> > > agreement, as that can be as abusive as the original action. So the
> first
> > > step in this situation would be to confirm with the individual editor
> > > whether or not they want their "case" to be examined.
> > >
> > > Should the editor be agreeable, I suggest that the next step is for
> > someone
> > > who has the ability to converse in Amharic to contact the Amharic
> > Wikipedia
> > > and find out why the block has been issued, how it is consistent with
> the
> > > username policy on Amharic Wikipedia, whether that policy is driven in
> > part
> > > by external considerations (e.g., does the project risk heavy
> > governmental
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

[Vi to]

Because of a truly great idea

the involved user's admin/bureaucrat access was revoked

by Marco Aurelio.

Vito

Il giorno lun 7 gen 2019 alle ore 11:02 Amir Sarabadani 
ha scritto:

> Given the response on the talk page [1] I think it's clear violation of
> nondiscrimination policy [2]
>
> [1] "promotion of homosexuality will not be tolerated here nor will it be
> forced down our throats to suit anyone's international political agenda if
> you expect Ethiopians to take part."
> [2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Nondiscrimination
>
> Best
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, 23:09 Risker  wrote:
>
> >  I note that we are talking about the block of one single user on one
> > single project; this particular account has thousands of edits over
> about a
> > dozen projects, but is "attached" to hundreds of Wikimedia projects.  The
> > majority of these "attached" accounts are likely because the editor
> > "visited" the various projects while logged in, activating the automatic
> > account creation algorithm.  The account was created 8 years ago, and has
> > actively edited a wide variety of  projects, including several
> wikipedias,
> > Commons, Wikidata, and Meta. While English Wikipedia is the account's
> > "home" wiki, about 55% of the account's global edits have been made on
> > Marathi Wikipedia. The Amharic Wikipedia account does not appear to have
> > edited, which suggests that it was automatically created when the editor
> > was "looking at" the project on 9  February 2018.  The block for account
> > name was made on 22 October 2018.  I note that accounts were created on
> > over a hundred projects over the course of a few days in February 2018.
> >
> > The point being raised in this thread is that it appears this editor was
> > blocked on one of the 381 wikis on which they have an account, explicitly
> > because of the perception that their username calls attention to the
> sexual
> > behaviour of the editor. What we do not know is (a) whether that is in
> fact
> > a legitimate username block reason on Amharic Wikipedia, or (b) if it is
> a
> > legitimate username block reason, *why* it would be a username block
> > reason. We don't know why this block was applied so long after the
> account
> > was created. We don't know the username policy on Amharic Wikipedia, nor
> do
> > we know how it is applied; for example, we don't know if a username like
> > "StraightGuy101" would be blocked.  We do know that there are only 4
> > administrators on Amharic Wikipedia, and that there are fewer than 50
> > active users working on the project, which may be part of the reason for
> > the delay between automatic account creation and the account block.
> >
> > We also know that one of the challenges of single user login for all
> > Wikimedia projects has highlighted the fact that certain usernames that
> are
> > acceptable on some projects are blocked on other projects; we've known
> that
> > for years. We know that each project establishes its own policies when it
> > comes to usernames. There are legitimate reasons why a username that is
> > acceptable in one language is not acceptable in another language, even in
> > cases where the editor had no knowledge that the chosen username would
> be a
> > problem in another language. We do know that there have been lots of
> cases
> > where usernames have been blocked for "username policy violation" on all
> > kinds of projects, despite the account operating productively on other
> > projects.
> >
> > I also note that there is nothing in this thread that confirms the editor
> > themself has raised any concerns about this block, and I am always wary
> of
> > turning an editor into a "martyr for a cause" without their direct
> > agreement, as that can be as abusive as the original action. So the first
> > step in this situation would be to confirm with the individual editor
> > whether or not they want their "case" to be examined.
> >
> > Should the editor be agreeable, I suggest that the next step is for
> someone
> > who has the ability to converse in Amharic to contact the Amharic
> Wikipedia
> > and find out why the block has been issued, how it is consistent with the
> > username policy on Amharic Wikipedia, whether that policy is driven in
> part
> > by external considerations (e.g., does the project risk heavy
> governmental
> > scrutiny if it appears to "promote" locally unacceptable activities). I
> am
> > personally curious as to why it took over six months to identify that
> this
> > account did not meet the local username policy, and whether there was
> > internal or external discussion about the username.
> >
> > It is not clear to me what the desired outcome is in this case - at least
> > in part because we have no idea of the opinion of the editor involved.  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

[Amir Sarabadani]

Given the response on the talk page [1] I think it's clear violation of
nondiscrimination policy [2]

[1] "promotion of homosexuality will not be tolerated here nor will it be
forced down our throats to suit anyone's international political agenda if
you expect Ethiopians to take part."
[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Nondiscrimination

Best
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, 23:09 Risker  wrote:

>  I note that we are talking about the block of one single user on one
> single project; this particular account has thousands of edits over about a
> dozen projects, but is "attached" to hundreds of Wikimedia projects.  The
> majority of these "attached" accounts are likely because the editor
> "visited" the various projects while logged in, activating the automatic
> account creation algorithm.  The account was created 8 years ago, and has
> actively edited a wide variety of  projects, including several wikipedias,
> Commons, Wikidata, and Meta. While English Wikipedia is the account's
> "home" wiki, about 55% of the account's global edits have been made on
> Marathi Wikipedia. The Amharic Wikipedia account does not appear to have
> edited, which suggests that it was automatically created when the editor
> was "looking at" the project on 9  February 2018.  The block for account
> name was made on 22 October 2018.  I note that accounts were created on
> over a hundred projects over the course of a few days in February 2018.
>
> The point being raised in this thread is that it appears this editor was
> blocked on one of the 381 wikis on which they have an account, explicitly
> because of the perception that their username calls attention to the sexual
> behaviour of the editor. What we do not know is (a) whether that is in fact
> a legitimate username block reason on Amharic Wikipedia, or (b) if it is a
> legitimate username block reason, *why* it would be a username block
> reason. We don't know why this block was applied so long after the account
> was created. We don't know the username policy on Amharic Wikipedia, nor do
> we know how it is applied; for example, we don't know if a username like
> "StraightGuy101" would be blocked.  We do know that there are only 4
> administrators on Amharic Wikipedia, and that there are fewer than 50
> active users working on the project, which may be part of the reason for
> the delay between automatic account creation and the account block.
>
> We also know that one of the challenges of single user login for all
> Wikimedia projects has highlighted the fact that certain usernames that are
> acceptable on some projects are blocked on other projects; we've known that
> for years. We know that each project establishes its own policies when it
> comes to usernames. There are legitimate reasons why a username that is
> acceptable in one language is not acceptable in another language, even in
> cases where the editor had no knowledge that the chosen username would be a
> problem in another language. We do know that there have been lots of cases
> where usernames have been blocked for "username policy violation" on all
> kinds of projects, despite the account operating productively on other
> projects.
>
> I also note that there is nothing in this thread that confirms the editor
> themself has raised any concerns about this block, and I am always wary of
> turning an editor into a "martyr for a cause" without their direct
> agreement, as that can be as abusive as the original action. So the first
> step in this situation would be to confirm with the individual editor
> whether or not they want their "case" to be examined.
>
> Should the editor be agreeable, I suggest that the next step is for someone
> who has the ability to converse in Amharic to contact the Amharic Wikipedia
> and find out why the block has been issued, how it is consistent with the
> username policy on Amharic Wikipedia, whether that policy is driven in part
> by external considerations (e.g., does the project risk heavy governmental
> scrutiny if it appears to "promote" locally unacceptable activities). I am
> personally curious as to why it took over six months to identify that this
> account did not meet the local username policy, and whether there was
> internal or external discussion about the username.
>
> It is not clear to me what the desired outcome is in this case - at least
> in part because we have no idea of the opinion of the editor involved.  I
> am hard-pressed to say that a project should be required to allow usernames
> that it has a long history of considering unacceptable, especially if it is
> applied evenly to all accounts; in this case, if it disallows usernames
> that imply sexual preference regardless of what that preference is.
>
> It seems to me that the WMF Trust & Safety group would probably be the
> right group to examine this.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 09:42, Ariel Glenn WMF  wrote:
>
> > Additional notes:
> > The user's regular page can be viewed on en 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

[Risker]

 I note that we are talking about the block of one single user on one
single project; this particular account has thousands of edits over about a
dozen projects, but is "attached" to hundreds of Wikimedia projects.  The
majority of these "attached" accounts are likely because the editor
"visited" the various projects while logged in, activating the automatic
account creation algorithm.  The account was created 8 years ago, and has
actively edited a wide variety of  projects, including several wikipedias,
Commons, Wikidata, and Meta. While English Wikipedia is the account's
"home" wiki, about 55% of the account's global edits have been made on
Marathi Wikipedia. The Amharic Wikipedia account does not appear to have
edited, which suggests that it was automatically created when the editor
was "looking at" the project on 9  February 2018.  The block for account
name was made on 22 October 2018.  I note that accounts were created on
over a hundred projects over the course of a few days in February 2018.

The point being raised in this thread is that it appears this editor was
blocked on one of the 381 wikis on which they have an account, explicitly
because of the perception that their username calls attention to the sexual
behaviour of the editor. What we do not know is (a) whether that is in fact
a legitimate username block reason on Amharic Wikipedia, or (b) if it is a
legitimate username block reason, *why* it would be a username block
reason. We don't know why this block was applied so long after the account
was created. We don't know the username policy on Amharic Wikipedia, nor do
we know how it is applied; for example, we don't know if a username like
"StraightGuy101" would be blocked.  We do know that there are only 4
administrators on Amharic Wikipedia, and that there are fewer than 50
active users working on the project, which may be part of the reason for
the delay between automatic account creation and the account block.

We also know that one of the challenges of single user login for all
Wikimedia projects has highlighted the fact that certain usernames that are
acceptable on some projects are blocked on other projects; we've known that
for years. We know that each project establishes its own policies when it
comes to usernames. There are legitimate reasons why a username that is
acceptable in one language is not acceptable in another language, even in
cases where the editor had no knowledge that the chosen username would be a
problem in another language. We do know that there have been lots of cases
where usernames have been blocked for "username policy violation" on all
kinds of projects, despite the account operating productively on other
projects.

I also note that there is nothing in this thread that confirms the editor
themself has raised any concerns about this block, and I am always wary of
turning an editor into a "martyr for a cause" without their direct
agreement, as that can be as abusive as the original action. So the first
step in this situation would be to confirm with the individual editor
whether or not they want their "case" to be examined.

Should the editor be agreeable, I suggest that the next step is for someone
who has the ability to converse in Amharic to contact the Amharic Wikipedia
and find out why the block has been issued, how it is consistent with the
username policy on Amharic Wikipedia, whether that policy is driven in part
by external considerations (e.g., does the project risk heavy governmental
scrutiny if it appears to "promote" locally unacceptable activities). I am
personally curious as to why it took over six months to identify that this
account did not meet the local username policy, and whether there was
internal or external discussion about the username.

It is not clear to me what the desired outcome is in this case - at least
in part because we have no idea of the opinion of the editor involved.  I
am hard-pressed to say that a project should be required to allow usernames
that it has a long history of considering unacceptable, especially if it is
applied evenly to all accounts; in this case, if it disallows usernames
that imply sexual preference regardless of what that preference is.

It seems to me that the WMF Trust & Safety group would probably be the
right group to examine this.

Risker/Anne

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 09:42, Ariel Glenn WMF  wrote:

> Additional notes:
> The user's regular page can be viewed on en wikipedia:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QueerEcofeminist
> Queer may have to do with gender identity as opposed to being an indicator
> of 'sexual behavior', so the blockers didn't even get that right. Example:
> I am gender-nonconforming as to my gender identity and expression; this is
> the primary reason I use the label 'queer'.
>
> I believe this should be reported... somewhere. But I don't know where. The
> WMF CoC only covers technical spaces. A little help here?
>
> Ariel
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:26 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Do 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

[Pine W]

Sorry, I meant to say Amharic, not Armenian.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 9:45 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> My opinion is that the block should be lifted. However, to the best of my
> knowledge, an appeal of a local block to the larger Wikiverse has never
> been successful. I am guessing that there are at least four factors here:
> 1. a lack of consensus for a process for appealing a local block to the
> larger community, or whether such a process is desirable, 2. a lack of
> skilled community human resources capacity to review such appeals (I would
> guess that reviewers of appeals would get flooded with hundreds of
> low-value appeals, that the job would be emotionally and intellectually
> difficult, and that the queue for reviews would be many months long), 3. a
> lack of confidence among people who are not proficient in a language to
> review a dispute that happened in that language, and 4. a lack of volunteer
> capacity and financial resources for highly accurate translations of
> appeals and their related content.
>
> Asking WMF to overturn a community block sets a precedent for them to
> substitute their judgement for the community's. There is a history of
> problems with WMF clashing with the community, and I have an ongoing
> objection to WMF's unilateral and opaque uses of global blocks. I would not
> want WMF to forcibly intervene in matters like this. Instead, What I
> recommend is diplomacy. The admin who made the block appears to have
> intermediate proficiency in English. I recommend first having a diplomatic
> discussion with that admin regarding the block. The admin could be
> persuaded to remove it. By "diplomatic discussion" I do not mean telling
> the admin bluntly that "you are wrong and I am right". An assumption of
> good faith, persuasion, and respect are likely to be valuable here. Try
> diplomacy first.
>
> If the admin remains unpersuaded to unblock the user then, to the best of
> my knowledge, the only routes of appeal available are on that wiki. I am
> unfamiliar with the specific situation in Armenian Wikipedia, but I suggest
> looking for a local policy for appealing blocks and looking for a username
> policy. Intermediate proficiency in Armenian is likely to be highly
> desirable, and likely necessary, for productive conversations on that wiki
> regarding a block appeal and/or proposing a change in local username policy.
>
> I realize that the concept of appealing a local block to the global
> community sounds like it is worth considering, but even if in principle
> there becomes a consensus that we should allow this, implementing such an
> option for appeals would likely be difficult and time consuming in
> practice, and without highly accurate translations which we do not appear
> to have sufficient volunteer or financial resources to support at this
> time, I think that the potential for mistakes due to misunderstandings is
> high.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
___
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] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

[Pine W]

Hi,

My opinion is that the block should be lifted. However, to the best of my
knowledge, an appeal of a local block to the larger Wikiverse has never
been successful. I am guessing that there are at least four factors here:
1. a lack of consensus for a process for appealing a local block to the
larger community, or whether such a process is desirable, 2. a lack of
skilled community human resources capacity to review such appeals (I would
guess that reviewers of appeals would get flooded with hundreds of
low-value appeals, that the job would be emotionally and intellectually
difficult, and that the queue for reviews would be many months long), 3. a
lack of confidence among people who are not proficient in a language to
review a dispute that happened in that language, and 4. a lack of volunteer
capacity and financial resources for highly accurate translations of
appeals and their related content.

Asking WMF to overturn a community block sets a precedent for them to
substitute their judgement for the community's. There is a history of
problems with WMF clashing with the community, and I have an ongoing
objection to WMF's unilateral and opaque uses of global blocks. I would not
want WMF to forcibly intervene in matters like this. Instead, What I
recommend is diplomacy. The admin who made the block appears to have
intermediate proficiency in English. I recommend first having a diplomatic
discussion with that admin regarding the block. The admin could be
persuaded to remove it. By "diplomatic discussion" I do not mean telling
the admin bluntly that "you are wrong and I am right". An assumption of
good faith, persuasion, and respect are likely to be valuable here. Try
diplomacy first.

If the admin remains unpersuaded to unblock the user then, to the best of
my knowledge, the only routes of appeal available are on that wiki. I am
unfamiliar with the specific situation in Armenian Wikipedia, but I suggest
looking for a local policy for appealing blocks and looking for a username
policy. Intermediate proficiency in Armenian is likely to be highly
desirable, and likely necessary, for productive conversations on that wiki
regarding a block appeal and/or proposing a change in local username policy.

I realize that the concept of appealing a local block to the global
community sounds like it is worth considering, but even if in principle
there becomes a consensus that we should allow this, implementing such an
option for appeals would likely be difficult and time consuming in
practice, and without highly accurate translations which we do not appear
to have sufficient volunteer or financial resources to support at this
time, I think that the potential for mistakes due to misunderstandings is
high.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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] Blocks which appear to demonstrate prejudice against minorities

[Ariel Glenn WMF]

Additional notes:
The user's regular page can be viewed on en wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QueerEcofeminist
Queer may have to do with gender identity as opposed to being an indicator
of 'sexual behavior', so the blockers didn't even get that right. Example:
I am gender-nonconforming as to my gender identity and expression; this is
the primary reason I use the label 'queer'.

I believe this should be reported... somewhere. But I don't know where. The
WMF CoC only covers technical spaces. A little help here?

Ariel

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:26 PM Fæ  wrote:

> Do we have cross project policies to govern or limit local policies
> for the use of sysop tools? I would like to pass on policy advice, and
> any past cases folks here would like to highlight that set a
> precedent.
>
> The case below is illustrative, though based on my recall of several
> complaints which went nowhere over the years, on email lists, and
> Jimmy's talk page, about apparently arbitrary blocks on different
> non-English Wikipedias, it seems reasonable to believe those
> complaints are the tip of the iceberg, and there are likely to be many
> historical cases of blocks that could have been appealed... had the
> user been confident to complain in English, and have the energy to
> pursue generic WMF policies on terms of use, or
> harassment/discrimination, to establish a meta-level case.
>
> # Example case
>
> An account block on the Amharic Wikipedia (am.wp) was flagged up
> yesterday on the WM LGBT+ Telegram discussion group.[3] The rationale
> for blocking the account was because the account name includes the
> word "Queer"[1]. The incident raises questions about process and
> accountability, particularly as the block gives the impression that
> this is the norm or an agreed interpretation of policy for sysops on
> am.wp, and because the user is well established using this account
> name across Wikimedia projects and has never edited am.wp so the block
> cannot be based on any prior action or dispute.
>
> In this example there is no obvious process for appeal, if sysops on
> that project think that blocking any LGBT+ related account name
> represents local consensus. After off-wiki discussion, the WMF Trust
> and Safety team has been approached for advice,[2] as the rationale
> for the action appears hostile to any openly LGBT+ volunteers who
> might want to include something queer looking in their account name
> (such as my account name, should anyone want to read it as transgender
> related).
>
> # Links
>
> 1.
> https://am.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%88%8D%E1%8B%A9:Contributions/QueerEcofeminist
> ;
> the block log states "Names calling attention to your sexual behavior
> have never been allowed here in 15 years and aren't suddenly allowed
> in 2018"
> 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trust_and_Safety
> 3. https://telegram.me/wmlgbt
>
> Thanks
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+
>
> ___
> 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,