On 16-03-01 03:57 AM, David Emrany wrote:
> What nobody is prepared to acknowledge is that only under Lila's term
> some of the most blatant and egregious instances of coordinated PR
> socking and on-wiki abuses could come out.

I was tangentially part of the investigation that led to many of those
things being ferreted out and I can tell you with absolute certainty:

(a) The Foundation did not in any way prevent those investigations for
abuse in the past (before or after Lila), so saying that "only under
Lila's term [they] could come out" is at best misguided.

(b) The single biggest help we have had in being able that kind of abuse
were the revised terms of use, that were put in place in 2012 and
started being worked on at least a year prior.  As far as I know the ED
had minor to no involvement in this - that was a long-overdue initiative
from Legal.  But even *if* it had ED involvement, it would have been all
Sue.

(c) The foundation has always given volunteers support when we needed
Legal/Comm help getting rid of significant abuse, for as long as I can
remember (At least since 2008).  The help they were *able* to give at
the time was more limited because the LCA team was tiny and overworked,
but they always tried their best.

So, nobody is "prepared to acknowledge" your assertion because it has no
relationship with reality.

-- Coren / Marc


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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>

Reply via email to