Hacker News Reader

Comment by raxxorrax | Hacker News Reader

I agree. I did contribute to Wikipedia once or twice, but that was quite some time ago and I don't remember the prevalence of any editors at that time. I would like to have political content separated because 90% of contested articles are opinions while common articles have a steady quality. It definitely is a problem, so the current ensemble of editors might be too. They should at least flag it as such.

> When someone complains loudly about censorship, you may be certain they are up to no good.

No, you probably did censor them. You wouldn't even need to promote their views. Just put it in the criticism section and be done with it. It may be value added for every reader, even if the editor already dismissed the opinion.

Wasn't the top admin banned by the foundation few days ago? Someone told me there were controversies... again...

The attitude is indeed disgraceful and pretty much against anything Wikipedia once stood for.

View on HN

> 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_t...

Probably best to start with the two statements 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.

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.

The foundation have said that to protect the people making the complaints they're not going to release more details.

Probably a wise choice, but they would need something to justify the ban. Otherwise it would be statement against statement would it not?

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.

That's a very partisan way of presenting things.

It's literally what the foundation have said.

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....

> 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.

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.

> ... 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com