Comment by spoaceman7777
1 day ago
Wow, they're on a roll over there. Just two days ago they permanently banned the cofounder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger.
Per his tweet: "Well, that’s that—I’ve been blocked by Wikipedia “indefinitely” for unstated reasons, by the “consensus” of a mob. There was no due process, no prosecutor, no dispassionate judge, no jury, no interpretation of law. All my judges were self-selected and hated me."
Link to his June 22nd tweet on the matter: https://x.com/lsanger/status/2069061483422425287
>for unstated reasons
the reasons were clearly stated, which he knows because he replied to them in the discussion.
whether you agree with the reasons is one thing, but this tweet is just a lie, and only serves to discredit him.
> the reasons were clearly stated
…what are they?
off-wiki canvassing for his proposal. its in the title of the issue and the summary is right at the top of the page.
"There is clear consensus for a community ban of User:Larry Sanger. There is general agreement among participants that he has engaged in off-wiki canvassing and is not here to constructively build the encyclopedia. There is also a significant concern shared by many editors that his actions constitute calls for outing."
6 replies →
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_no...
It 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.
Maybe the implication here is that supposedly the real reasons are personal/political and the stated ones are just the justification?
Then 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.
That seems completely irrelevant to the post. Plus, isn't that the guy who hasn't been involved in the project since 2002? If it's been 2 decades, maybe it's time to find something else