3 ms·
> Wikipedia's community has a long established set of processes for self-governance, but they were bypassed in this case. This is untrue. The processes were u
by DanBC 7y ago
> Wikipedia's community has a long established set of processes for self-governance, but they were bypassed in this case.
This is untrue.
The processes were used and they failed to work. They failed to protect people from this abusive admin. Read the discussion about fram - there are plenty of people there saying "he's a bit of an arsehole but he edits a lot". Clearly the existing processes were aware that fram was abusive.
- nullc 7y agoWikimedia is currently not even providing information about their actions to the arbcom. How can you argue that the process didn't work when it is apparently contingent on information which is being concealed from it? People in the discussion aren't for the most part arguing that fram shouldn't be banned-- the discussion is almost exclusively about the constitutional issues and accusations of impropriety. ... but "bit of an arsehole" could mean a lot of things and doesn't necessarily mean abusive. Edit: The arbcom has issued a statement-- a fairly strongly worded one, by arbcom's standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram#Open_letter_from_the_Arbitration_Committee_to_the_WMF_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t...