It looks like what Wikimedia is saying is they gave a (typically) confusing response to the Italian journalists which they (in good faith) misreported.
Wikimedia communications would benefit from a willingness to answer yes/no questions with a yes or no, imho. On Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 7:24 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lodewijk, > > The question at the top of that talk page section on Meta[1] is: > > "Is the money still with Tides?" > > The answer seems to be "Yes". > > If so, then the next question is: > > If the money is still with Tides, then why did the WMF tell the Italian > journalists that their information was incorrect and the Endowment had > already been moved to the 501(c)(3)? > > It seems like another case of paltering.[2] The bigger issue is that this > sort of thing *undermines community trust in everything the WMF says*, > especially about money.[3] Why didn't the WMF simply tell the journalists, > as you just put it, Lodewijk, "No, not yet. But we are going towards that > new situation"? > > We had two high-profile community RfCs on the English Wikipedia's Vilage > Pump last year that came to the conclusion that the WMF puts out misleading > or deceptive communications.[4] Half the shortlisted board candidates in > last year's board election endorsed that view during their campaigns.[5] > > We have a longstanding and, I believe, popular (his talk page has 670 > watchers) English Wikipedia administrator, a former member of the > Arbitration Committee, saying things like the following on his talk page[6] > (last year, in a different context): > > *"I don't doubt that the WMF is lying here—when it comes to where the > money comes from, where it goes, and who is taking a cut along the way, it > would be more unusual to find them being honest". * > > *"What's particularly irritating is that there's no need for the WMF to > equivocate here and they're just doing it out of habit."* > > I believe those are fairly mainstream views in the community, based on > close observation of the WMF's conduct. It's not healthy, and I believe the > WMF should look at its paltering habit. > > Andreas > > [1] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides > ? > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paltering > [3] See also ongoing discussions here: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Enterprise#Additional_members_of_the_LLC_besides_the_Wikimedia_Foundation > [4] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_193#Review_of_English_Wikimedia_fundraising_emails > and > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_197#RfC_on_the_banners_for_the_December_2022_fundraising_campaign > [5] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Election_Compass/Answers > [6] > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&oldid=1124517409 > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 9:18 PM effe iets anders <effeietsand...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Lane, >> >> maybe I'm just reading this differently, but doesn't "we are in the >> process" typically mean "no, not yet. But we are going towards that new >> situation"? If you don't feel this answers your question, it might be >> beneficial to spell out the question a bit more explicitly. Re-reading the >> statement of Andreas, I mostly see a statement that he is confused and his >> question is "could someone please clarify this please". In Julia's >> response, I read a good faith effort (but apparently insufficient for you) >> to achieve just that: clarification. >> >> Best, >> Lodewijk >> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:40 AM Lane Chance <zinkl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Fascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question on >>> Meta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they have >>> not answered the obvious simple yes/no needed. >>> >>> A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags for >>> any logical reader. The huge amount of money under scrutiny is either >>> controlled by Tides or it isn't. The fact that the WMF has evaded the >>> yes/no question several times indicates there is a problem here that >>> they are not prepared to confirm in public, such as using interim >>> "holders" or incurring significant fees. Though the fast reader might >>> think the answer was "yes", it does not actually say "yes", nor does >>> it give any fixed dates that anyone could be held accountable to, like >>> for example "the funds are controlled by Tides until the end of >>> February 2023" which would be specific, accountable and verifiable. >>> >>> Happy to be confirmed wrong, with *facts* rather than more opinions >>> and defensive non-answers. >>> >>> For some unknown reason, the WMF official reply was not included in >>> the email, here it is for anyone to fact check where it can't be >>> edited later on a wiki: >>> "This question was also raised in a thread on Wikimedia-l. SJ’s >>> message there summarized the situation very well. The Wikimedia >>> Endowment has received its 501(c)(3) status from the US Internal >>> Revenue Service. We are in the process of setting up its financial >>> systems and transitioning out of Tides. This is in line with the >>> direction from the 2021 resolution from Wikimedia Foundation Board of >>> Trustees. We plan further updates in the next few months.The statement >>> made by the recent broadcast in Italy was unfortunately an incorrect >>> representation of the answers we sent them; a further clarification >>> was made on establishment of the Endowment in January also linked from >>> the show’s page. Considered as a whole, there are lots of inaccuracies >>> in the broadcast despite engagement with the show by the Foundation >>> and Wikimedia Italia over a period of six months to ensure the >>> movement and Wikipedia’s editing model were represented correctly.Best >>> regards JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)" >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Lane (for the avoidance of doubt, I have no connection to Wikipedia >>> Signpost) >>> >>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Julia Brungs <jbru...@wikimedia.org> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi All, >>> > >>> > We’ve answered this question on the Endowment’s meta talk page. [1] >>> > Regards, >>> > Julia >>> > >>> > [1] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides >>> ? >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 3:32 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Dear Sam, >>> >> >>> >> Money cannot be in two places at the same time. Either it has been >>> moved, or it has not been moved. >>> >> >>> >> The Rai journalists specifically asked "Why the Wikimedia Foundation >>> didn't move it to a separate 501e3 entity?" >>> >> >>> >> Here is the complete question again: >>> >> >>> >> Q: The Wikimedia Endowment is today still entrusted to the Tides >>> Foundation. According to SignPost ( >>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion) >>> on March 2017 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said: “The WMF board has already given us >>> the direction to move it into a separate 501c3 once the endowment reaches >>> $33 million. [...] WMF's Executive Director is supportive of moving it to a >>> new 501c3 once it reaches $33 million." The Endowment has reached $33 >>> million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia >>> Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into >>> the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report >>> about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information >>> and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations? >>> >> >>> >> If the picture you paint in your post describes the actual state of >>> affairs – i.e., the 501c3 has been set up, but it takes time to get the org >>> ready, so for now the money is still with Tides – then the answer should, I >>> feel, have looked something like this: >>> >> >>> >> A: We were planning to move the Endowment to a separate 501c3 entity >>> when it reached $33 million, but then our board decided to postpone that >>> move. We have now revived the plan to move the funds. We have established a >>> new organisation for that purpose, which received its 501c3 status in 2022. >>> We are currently getting that organisation ready to manage the Endowment >>> and expect to move the funds from Tides to the new org in (month/year). >>> >> >>> >> Instead, Nadee said Rai had it wrong, and made it sound like the >>> money had already been moved. And that is what the programme communicated >>> to the Italian audience – that the WMF said the Endowment had been >>> transferred to a dedicated new entity a few months ago in 2022. >>> >> >>> >> This is contradicted today both by the Endowment website and the >>> Endowment page on Meta-Wiki, which says that the Endowment is "currently >>> managed by the Tides Foundation as a Collective Action Fund". >>> >> >>> >> There are really two issues here: >>> >> >>> >> 1. Where is the money? There are now contradictory messages about >>> this in the public domain. >>> >> 2. How comfortable are we with how the WMF is communicating? >>> >> >>> >> As regards the second point, Nadee also told Rai: >>> >> >>> >> A: The Wikimedia Endowment was founded on and upholds principles of >>> transparency common to our movement. Our financials are available for >>> public review and we ensure our community and benefactors stay informed on >>> developments related to the endowment by publishing regular information >>> such as the list of donors, announcements about Endowment Board members on >>> the Endowment Website. We also publish current updates and new policy >>> updates on Wikimedia Meta and regular updates on our Diff blog, as well as >>> on the Wikimedia Foundation website. >>> >> >>> >> I disagree with that statement. The most recent info we have had on >>> the Endowment reflects January 2022 status – figures describing where >>> things stood a full year ago. And even then, nobody added the updated info >>> to the Endowment page on Meta. I added it, sourced to board meeting >>> minutes.[1] >>> >> >>> >> And as I have mentioned before, we have not seen a single audited >>> financial statement for the Endowment showing revenue and expenses etc. in >>> all the seven years it has existed. To me this falls short of the >>> "principles of transparency common to our movement" (a point that, >>> incidentally, was also made in the Italian programme). >>> >> >>> >> I (and others) also asked questions about Tides Advocacy several >>> weeks ago on Meta.[2] There has been no reply from the WMF to date. >>> >> >>> >> As you may recall, in 2019/2020, Tides Advocacy were given $4.223 >>> million that were to be used for Annual Plan Grants to Wikimedia affiliates >>> in the July 2020 – June 2021 financial year.[3] I have looked through the >>> Form 990 disclosures Tides Advocacy has filed for the 2020 and 2021 >>> calendar years (their 2021 Form 990 only became available a few weeks ago), >>> hoping to find US and non-US expenditure items corresponding to that >>> 2020/2021 APG amount over Tides Advocacy's 2020 and 2021 calendar years. I >>> have not been successful. My sums fall about $400,000 short of the $4.223 >>> million total. >>> >> >>> >> Absent a clarification from the WMF, would you (and anyone else >>> reading in who feels so inclined) be able to have a look through the forms >>> as well, to see whether you come to a different result? The forms are >>> linked in the discussion.[2] It is always possible that you with your WMF >>> board experience might see an error I made or an item I have missed that >>> happily resolves the apparent discrepancy. >>> >> >>> >> Regards, >>> >> Andreas >>> >> >>> >> [1] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=prev&oldid=23639117 >>> >> [2] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Tides_Agreement >>> >> [3] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/XI5A4FKDJUK3VWOQWZIPIZXMWAMIX5IW/ >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 10:36 PM Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> The statements are not mutually exclusive. They are likely both >>> true, and what one might expect from governance decisions to date. >>> >>> >>> >>> WME got its 501c3 status last year, expanded its Board, and is >>> working on its structure. It will start emitting 501c3 reports this year. >>> It will need staff to take over any of the investment management Tides >>> currently provides; I would expect the current endowment fund (the >>> collective action fund) to remain there until an alternative is in place. >>> >>> >>> >>> The sorts of regular reports we care about (reflections on >>> organizatFascinating, the WMF are saying they have answered the question on >>> Meta, yet a simple fact check, by reading the page, shows they have not >>> answered the obvious simple yes/no needed. >>> >>> A vague reply of "We are in the process" must set off red flags for >>> any logical reader. The huge amount of money under scrutiny is either >>> controlled by Tides or it isn't. The fact that the WMF has evaded the >>> yes/no question several times indicates there is a problem here that >>> they are not prepared to confirm in public, such as using interim >>> "holders" or incurring significant fees. Though the fast reader might >>> think the answer was "yes", it does not actually say "yes", nor does >>> it give any fixed dates that anyone could be held accountable to, like >>> for example "the funds are controlled by Tides until the end of >>> February 2023" which would be specific, accountable and verifiable. >>> >>> Happy to be confirmed wrong, with *facts* rather than more opinions >>> and defensive non-answers. >>> >>> For some unknown reason, the WMF official reply was not included in >>> the email, here it is for anyone to fact check where it can't be >>> edited later on a wiki: >>> "This question was also raised in a thread on Wikimedia-l. SJ’s >>> message there summarized the situation very well. The Wikimedia >>> Endowment has received its 501(c)(3) status from the US Internal >>> Revenue Service. We are in the process of setting up its financial >>> systems and transitioning out of Tides. This is in line with the >>> direction from the 2021 resolution from Wikimedia Foundation Board of >>> Trustees. We plan further updates in the next few months.The statement >>> made by the recent broadcast in Italy was unfortunately an incorrect >>> representation of the answers we sent them; a further clarification >>> was made on establishment of the Endowment in January also linked from >>> the show’s page. Considered as a whole, there are lots of inaccuracies >>> in the broadcast despite engagement with the show by the Foundation >>> and Wikimedia Italia over a period of six months to ensure the >>> movement and Wikipedia’s editing model were represented correctly.Best >>> regards JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)" >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Lane >>> >>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Julia Brungs <jbru...@wikimedia.org> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi All, >>> > >>> > We’ve answered this question on the Endowment’s meta talk page. [1] >>> > Regards, >>> > Julia >>> > >>> > [1] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Endowment#Is_the_money_still_with_Tides >>> ? >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 3:32 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Dear Sam, >>> >> >>> >> Money cannot be in two places at the same time. Either it has been >>> moved, or it has not been moved. >>> >> >>> >> The Rai journalists specifically asked "Why the Wikimedia Foundation >>> didn't move it to a separate 501e3 entity?" >>> >> >>> >> Here is the complete question again: >>> >> >>> >> Q: The Wikimedia Endowment is today still entrusted to the Tides >>> Foundation. According to SignPost ( >>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion) >>> on March 2017 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell said: “The WMF board has already given us >>> the direction to move it into a separate 501c3 once the endowment reaches >>> $33 million. [...] WMF's Executive Director is supportive of moving it to a >>> new 501c3 once it reaches $33 million." The Endowment has reached $33 >>> million and passed them reaching $100 million today. Why the Wikimedia >>> Foundation didn’t move it to a separate 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into >>> the Tides Foundation is not available to the public any financial report >>> about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think there is a lack of information >>> and transparency about a fund that is created through worldwide donations? >>> >> >>> >> If the picture you paint in your post describes the actual state of >>> affairs – i.e., the 501c3 has been set up, but it takes time to get the org >>> ready, so for now the money is still with Tides – then the answer should, I >>> feel, have looked something like this: >>> >> >>> >> A: We were planning to move the Endowment to a separate 501c3 entity >>> when it reached $33 million, but then our board decided to postpone that >>> move. We have now revived the plan to move the funds. We have established a >>> new organisation for that purpose, which received its 501c3 status in 2022. >>> We are currently getting that organisation ready to manage the Endowment >>> and expect to move the funds from Tides to the new org in (month/year). >>> >> >>> >> Instead, Nadee said Rai had it wrong, and made it sound like the >>> money had already been moved. And that is what the programme communicated >>> to the Italian audience – that the WMF said the Endowment had been >>> transferred to a dedicated new entity a few months ago in 2022. >>> >> >>> >> This is contradicted today both by the Endowment website and the >>> Endowment page on Meta-Wiki, which says that the Endowment is "currently >>> managed by the Tides Foundation as a Collective Action Fund". >>> >> >>> >> There are really two issues here: >>> >> >>> >> 1. Where is the money? There are now contradictory messages about >>> this in the public domain. >>> >> 2. How comfortable are we with how the WMF is communicating? >>> >> >>> >> As regards the second point, Nadee also told Rai: >>> >> >>> >> A: The Wikimedia Endowment was founded on and upholds principles of >>> transparency common to our movement. Our financials are available for >>> public review and we ensure our community and benefactors stay informed on >>> developments related to the endowment by publishing regular information >>> such as the list of donors, announcements about Endowment Board members on >>> the Endowment Website. We also publish current updates and new policy >>> updates on Wikimedia Meta and regular updates on our Diff blog, as well as >>> on the Wikimedia Foundation website. >>> >> >>> >> I disagree with that statement. The most recent info we have had on >>> the Endowment reflects January 2022 status – figures describing where >>> things stood a full year ago. And even then, nobody added the updated info >>> to the Endowment page on Meta. I added it, sourced to board meeting >>> minutes.[1] >>> >> >>> >> And as I have mentioned before, we have not seen a single audited >>> financial statement for the Endowment showing revenue and expenses etc. in >>> all the seven years it has existed. To me this falls short of the >>> "principles of transparency common to our movement" (a point that, >>> incidentally, was also made in the Italian programme). >>> >> >>> >> I (and others) also asked questions about Tides Advocacy several >>> weeks ago on Meta.[2] There has been no reply from the WMF to date. >>> >> >>> >> As you may recall, in 2019/2020, Tides Advocacy were given $4.223 >>> million that were to be used for Annual Plan Grants to Wikimedia affiliates >>> in the July 2020 – June 2021 financial year.[3] I have looked through the >>> Form 990 disclosures Tides Advocacy has filed for the 2020 and 2021 >>> calendar years (their 2021 Form 990 only became available a few weeks ago), >>> hoping to find US and non-US expenditure items corresponding to that >>> 2020/2021 APG amount over Tides Advocacy's 2020 and 2021 calendar years. I >>> have not been successful. My sums fall about $400,000 short of the $4.223 >>> million total. >>> >> >>> >> Absent a clarification from the WMF, would you (and anyone else >>> reading in who feels so inclined) be able to have a look through the forms >>> as well, to see whether you come to a different result? The forms are >>> linked in the discussion.[2] It is always possible that you with your WMF >>> board experience might see an error I made or an item I have missed that >>> happily resolves the apparent discrepancy. >>> >> >>> >> Regards, >>> >> Andreas >>> >> >>> >> [1] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Endowment&diff=prev&oldid=23639117 >>> >> [2] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knowledge_Equity_Fund#Tides_Agreement >>> >> [3] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/XI5A4FKDJUK3VWOQWZIPIZXMWAMIX5IW/ >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 10:36 PM Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> The statements are not mutually exclusive. They are likely both >>> true, and what one might expect from governance decisions to date. >>> >>> >>> >>> WME got its 501c3 status last year, expanded its Board, and is >>> working on its structure. It will start emitting 501c3 reports this year. >>> It will need staff to take over any of the investment management Tides >>> currently provides; I would expect the current endowment fund (the >>> collective action fund) to remain there until an alternative is in place. >>> >>> >>> >>> The sorts of regular reports we care about (reflections on >>> organizational structure, timelines, goals and budgeting, coordination with >>> WMF, practicalities of how an endowment functions) are only partly related >>> to the mandatory reports of a charity. Lodewijk, agreed that those sorts >>> of clarifications are great, and relevant to how we all plan for the >>> future; perhaps we can catalyze a public conversation about such things. >>> >>> >>> >>> Warmly, SJ >>> >>> (still hoping for part of our movement to put out a series of plans >>> for maximizing project functionality on a minimal budget) >>> >>> >>> >>> Dan S writes: >>> >>> > Since the answers express mutually exclusive propositions... >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2JBV2WWRWVS5FOXRG4NZYKAOJK6X3XCX/ >>> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>> wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> >> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/IZOLY5P445B5VZ5L2CCBTAXMKXZ36SBE/ >>> >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> > Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4HF6OXDDOTIYB4KV2YU3BVOI7OI42OKQ/ >>> > To unsubscribe send an email to >>> wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.orgional structure, timelines, goals >>> and budgeting, coordination with WMF, practicalities of how an endowment >>> functions) are only partly related to the mandatory reports of a charity. >>> Lodewijk, agreed that those sorts of clarifications are great, and relevant >>> to how we all plan for the future; perhaps we can catalyze a public >>> conversation about such things. >>> >>> >>> >>> Warmly, SJ >>> >>> (still hoping for part of our movement to put out a series of plans >>> for maximizing project functionality on a minimal budget) >>> >>> >>> >>> Dan S writes: >>> >>> > Since the answers express mutually exclusive propositions... >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2JBV2WWRWVS5FOXRG4NZYKAOJK6X3XCX/ >>> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>> wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> >> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/IZOLY5P445B5VZ5L2CCBTAXMKXZ36SBE/ >>> >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> > Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4HF6OXDDOTIYB4KV2YU3BVOI7OI42OKQ/ >>> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KHAKHKHD6EZVE4QL5SHOO76E3F3WYJVC/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PZMXDDOMM5ZBF4KNWEZCN4B4HRD2B4GG/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/466OAUOXFBHSNNWT7VKQCAO2KAE3PHNS/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/X2NBYGEPXMGY4T4KPJSYLK2DKOS7GQCN/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
