4 ms·

> Wasn't the top admin banned by the foundation few days ago? Someone told me there were controversies... again... Yes. Here's the enormous discussion about t

by DanBC 7y ago

> Wasn't the top admin banned by the foundation few days ago? Someone told me there were controversies... again... Yes. Here's the enormous discussion about the banning of Fram. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t... Probably best to start with the two statements from the foundation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram#Statement_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram#Further_comment_from_the_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t... He was banned because he was abusive and harassing, and en:wiki couldn't or wouldn't control it.

raxxorrax 7y ago
To be honest, looking from outside I cannot put anything on that page into context (didn't read everything). Was there as specific instance of what prompted that ban? I don't even understand the role of these admins thoroughly.
- DanBC 7y ago
  The foundation have said that to protect the people making the complaints they're not going to release more details.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Probably a wise choice, but they would need something to justify the ban. Otherwise it would be statement against statement would it not?
    - DanBC 7y ago
      They claim they looked back over several years of edit history across multiple accounts. There are a few people in the linked thread defending him while saying he's an arsehole.
eclipseo76 7y ago
That's a very partisan way of presenting things.
- DanBC 7y ago
  It's literally what the foundation have said.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nsajko 7y ago
> He was banned because he was abusive and harassing, and en:wiki couldn't or wouldn't control it. That is a pro-Foundation stance. Fram was removed bypassing all existing community processes while there are no public complaints against him and with no rationale or explanation. It seems like he was just removed for being rude. Also note that Fram was a critic of the foundation. In any case, this is a truly weird change of behavior from the Wikimedia Foundation, considering that they previously ignored even child abuse from admins, leaving everything to Arbitration committees. Awful administrator abuse on hr.wikipedia.org, which dissolved its Arbitration committee and is literally run, written and micromanaged by illiterate Nazis (and I do not mean grammar-Nazi or something like that) who behave MUCH worse than Fram was ignored.
- mirimir 7y ago
  > ... there are no public complaints against him ... I gather that's because making complaints public would arguably identify those who had submitted them. And still, with that there's zero public accountability.
- DanBC 7y ago
  There are people in the linked thread saying his behaviour is problematic but that he should get a pass because he makes so many edits -- this is precisely the toxic culture that the foundation is trying to end.
metasonix 7y ago
Oh man, you should see our notes on Fram. What a complete asshole. And they KNEW he was an asshole, and they made him an admin anyway. For FOURTEEN YEARS he got away with all kinds of stupidity....

by DanBC 7y ago

raxxorrax 7y ago

To be honest, looking from outside I cannot put anything on that page into context (didn't read everything). Was there as specific instance of what prompted that ban? I don't even understand the role of these admins thoroughly.

DanBC 7y ago
The foundation have said that to protect the people making the complaints they're not going to release more details.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Probably a wise choice, but they would need something to justify the ban. Otherwise it would be statement against statement would it not?
  - DanBC 7y ago
    They claim they looked back over several years of edit history across multiple accounts. There are a few people in the linked thread defending him while saying he's an arsehole.

eclipseo76 7y ago

That's a very partisan way of presenting things.

DanBC 7y ago
It's literally what the foundation have said.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

nsajko 7y ago

> He was banned because he was abusive and harassing, and en:wiki couldn't or wouldn't control it. That is a pro-Foundation stance. Fram was removed bypassing all existing community processes while there are no public complaints against him and with no rationale or explanation. It seems like he was just removed for being rude. Also note that Fram was a critic of the foundation. In any case, this is a truly weird change of behavior from the Wikimedia Foundation, considering that they previously ignored even child abuse from admins, leaving everything to Arbitration committees. Awful administrator abuse on hr.wikipedia.org, which dissolved its Arbitration committee and is literally run, written and micromanaged by illiterate Nazis (and I do not mean grammar-Nazi or something like that) who behave MUCH worse than Fram was ignored.

mirimir 7y ago
> ... there are no public complaints against him ... I gather that's because making complaints public would arguably identify those who had submitted them. And still, with that there's zero public accountability.
DanBC 7y ago
There are people in the linked thread saying his behaviour is problematic but that he should get a pass because he makes so many edits -- this is precisely the toxic culture that the foundation is trying to end.

metasonix 7y ago

Oh man, you should see our notes on Fram. What a complete asshole. And they KNEW he was an asshole, and they made him an admin anyway. For FOURTEEN YEARS he got away with all kinds of stupidity....