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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
