Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-11-01/In the media

Discuss this story

The mystery editor of Jeanne Ives is almost certainly User:Sdanderson20, who, between October 2017 and February 2019, added more than 47,000 characters to the article. About 6,900 of those characters survived the two major deletions I did to the article on 20 October, when I removed about 60 percent of its text content. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is ironic, then, that their last edit was to Transition Integrity Project ☆ Bri (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Esquire article says this of Maher: "She says the aggressive approach she’s taken towards those editors she sees as destructive has occasionally “blown up in my face”, not least her decision last year to ban an editor she saw as “prolific, but not productive… somebody who was driving other editors away through their behaviour”." Since when did the WMF Executive Director take personal actions to ban someone? -Indy beetle (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently the WMF does take action if it receives direct complaints. The decision in question involves, I belive, Fram; here's some comments from towards the end of that controversy: Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh yes I did suspect it was Fram, but I thought that was the purview of Trust and Safety, not the ‘’personal decision’’ of the executive director. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to the T&S flowchart, the final step for a WMF ban is approval by the ED. I assume that's what's being referenced, not that the ED can personally decide to ban someone independent of the process. --Yair rand (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know her article had been nominated for deletion. By a banned editor, no less. Bri.public (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. It appears Katherine Maher belongs to the school of thought that holds "Wikipedia is an amazingly successful creation; however, it has some flaws which can be fixed by changing everything that made it amazingly successful." -- llywrch (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]