I was subliminally aware of your assist in Nemo's protest to Lila.
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.
1) WIKI-PR (250 sock accounts)
2) Orange Moody(350+ accounts)
5) Cuntgate - Eric Corbett
How long will WMF/BoT keep denying that there are persons in high
positions of trust (remember Essjay) who are misusing Wikipedia for
would be the simplest thing for WMF to insist on verification of WMF
user accounts, to ensure that minors cannot edit, or else to ensure
that anonymous editors must take responsibility for defamatory/biased
On 3/1/16, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2016-02-29 23:19 GMT-08:00 David Emrany
so reading your email, we also recall these
quotes from the time of the
Stanton Foundation fiasco ? 
"The Executive Director and Chief Revenue Officer agree that in the
future, any grants that are not unrestricted will receive a special
high level of scrutiny before being accepted."
"The ED plans, with the C-level team, to develop a better process for
staff to escalate and express concerns about any WMF activities that
staff think may in tension with, or in violation of, community
policies or best practices. It will take some time to develop a
simple, robust process: we aim to have it done by 1 May 2014."
I'm not sure if there's a question for me here? I wasn't involved in
the Belfer project until the postmortem. The ED transition happened
shortly thereafter. Regardless of whether it came up in that context
(I don't know for sure, but I doubt it), the follow-up was lost in the
shuffle. Nemo pointed that out a few months later, and Lila's final
response on the issue is here:
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org