Dave, you're simply mistaken.

The paid editing amendment was passed by the Board in April 2014 (before
Lila was hired); it was merely *announced* in June.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:59 AM, David Emrany <david.emr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Coren
>
> I think you are mistaken. The paid editing amendment was added in 2014
> (16th June) during Lila's term.[1] Lila took over the reins from Sue
> on 1 June 2014.
>
> I'm appalled that you credit Sue for the steps taken (under Lila) to
> widen the volunteer base by exposing many rotten apples, including
> through better technology.
>
> I equally state with certainty that your claim re the WMF's not
> preventing in any way the investigations is tremendously flexible with
> the truth and is completely divorced from reality. The enforcement of
> the Terms of Use lies exclusively with the WMF. There is no point
> repeating here the legal defeats WMF has suffered in many
> international courts during Sue's regime. We can discuss this
> privately.
>
> [1]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Terms_of_Use&type=revision&diff=98138&oldid=90463
>
> BTW, its unclear how someone "tangentially involved" can state facts
> with "absolute certainty".
>
> Dave
>
> On 3/1/16, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> wrote:
> > 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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