It is deeply unsettling to have my WHAT? I confirmed no such thing, and
your misrepresentations do you no favors.
One thing I have learned over the last few years is that it is impossible
to have a conversation in a spirit of openness when one party so wildly
misrepresents the statements of the other. That's not good faith dealing.
Therefore, I won't be continuing this discussion with you.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016, David Emrany <david.emrany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There is no public evidence of your misleading statements re years of
careful planning.and execution.
What there is public evidence of is that the WMF has systematically
To cite 1 specific instance, Sue Gardner was repeatedly informed about
the pedo on-wiki grooming by User Demiurge1000
"Who is responsible for child protection ?"
It is deeply unsettling to have your confirmation that Sue Gardner sat
on this for years and it was only Lila (an outsider with no great ties
to the community) who could globally ban this user out.
PS: You surely recall “I won’t allow the accusations that the anon is
making to stand on my talk page. I’ve redacted them. Philippe
Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)”
Additionally, I believe Coren was referring to
the expanded TOU as a
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
took place under Sue, and was the result of years
of careful planning and
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: