Nathan, I am unable to find a mention of sockpuppetry in the Terms of Use, whether in Section 4 or elsewhere.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use I don't think there could be such a mention, really, given that project policies recognise a number of legitimate uses of socks. A. On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Russavia <russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > Yes, Nathan, please let us cut the bullshit, for I have a pretty low > > tolerance for it, and I am happy to call you out on it. > > > > You are right, I don't see anywhere in Odder's blog or in my posts on > this > > list that Sarah is being accused of sock puppetry. I don't know why you > are > > making this totally irrelevation correlation, or is this you simply > trying > > to run interference? (Very poorly I might add, but certainly a better > > attempt than Gerard). I suggest that you re-read the cease and desist > > letter ( > > > > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/11/19/wikimedia-foundation-sends-cease-and-desist-letter-to-wikipr/ > > ) > > at the very top of page 2 you can see in pretty plain English that the > WMF > > has invoked Section 4 of the Terms of Use, in which the WMF makes veiled > > legal threats of fraud, misrepresentation, etc. It is showing severe > > naivety on your part if you think the Wiki-PR case was built around a > farm > > of sockpuppets; that was merely the catalyst for the anti-paid editing > > crowd to really sink their teeth into the situation -- that should surely > > be evident from Sue's press release. > > > You must not have read the actual cease and desist letter. I understand, > it's several paragraphs, and that level of investigatory work is too > burdensome when you are racing to cause maximum drama. To quote a part of > the relevant portion "This practice, known as sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, > is expressly prohibited by Wikipedia's Terms of Use." This is supported by > the actual text of section 4 of the Terms of Use, which mention > sockpuppetry but do not mention paid editing. > > So the bullshit, to return to the point, is you accusing Sarah of violating > the Terms of Use. Even if she did write an article for $300, she did not > violate the ToU. Your claim otherwise is meant to be incendiary, and is at > a minimum ignorant but much more likely simply dishonest. Your support of > Wiki-PR, a group that did indisputably break the ToU and caused hundreds of > hours worth of clean up work, proves that whatever motivates you in this > thread it certainly isn't the benefit of the Wikimedia movement or any > legitimate part of it. > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>