3 ms·
While the merits of Sanger's banning are worth debating, Sanger is dishonestly representing the process here. The reasons, rather than being 'unstated', were st
by _djo_ 3mo ago
While the merits of Sanger's banning are worth debating, Sanger is dishonestly representing the process here. The reasons, rather than being 'unstated', were stated repeatedly and were not unreasonable. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Possible_off-wiki_canvassing_by_User:Larry_Sanger#Possible_off-wiki_canvassing_by_User:Larry_Sanger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- Telaneo 3mo agoIt was even directly linked to in the post on his talk page, that he took a screenshot of. Hardly unstated. To be fair, there's a lot of text in that thread, but that is pretty unavoidable if the accusations have any sort of merit. He also actively participated in it, so he's probably actually read the majority of it.
- wqaatwt 3mo agoMaybe the implication here is that supposedly the real reasons are personal/political and the stated ones are just the justification?
- _djo_ 3mo agoThen he should justify that. When I read through the discussion though it seems that the stated reasons were arguably sufficient to justify the action taken. Sanger has been given a lot more leeway over the years, because of his status as a co-founder, than anyone else would have been given.