Additionally, I believe Coren was referring to the expanded TOU as a whole,
not to that amendment alone. And I agree with him, for the record.
Lila's support in expanding the size of the CA team was useful in helping
to combat the abuses mentioned, but the vast majority of the systemic work
took place under Sue, and was the result of years of careful planning and
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:59 AM, David Emrany <david.emr...@gmail.com>
> > Dear Coren
> > I think you are mistaken. The paid editing amendment was added in 2014
> > (16th June) during Lila's term. 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
> > repeating here the legal defeats WMF has suffered in many
> > international courts during Sue's regime. We can discuss this
> > privately.
> > 
> > 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
> > > 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
> > > from Legal. But even *if* it had ED involvement, it would have been
> > > 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
> > > relationship with reality.
> > >
> > > -- Coren / Marc
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com