So there's some recent major reddit drama at the admin level involving a recently hired admin turning out to have hired their now-convicted pedo father post-arrest during a brief journey into Britbong politics. This has completely exploded over the last couple days after posts on /r/ukpolitics were force-removed, a moderator was suspended (then later reinstated) for linking to an article from the Spectator, and there have been horrifically broad automod rules implemented which were nuking any links to that and more articles, alongside accusations made regarding this admin by name (username and IRL name).
Now, we aren't getting into the weeds on the accusations, but the overwhelming admin level response to them, including mass comment hard nukes (they show up for moderators as [removed] and cannot be reapproved at all), mass user suspensions, as well as the hard block on links to actual news sites (IIRC the Spectator, Independent, and a couple others were included) is something we cannot remotely condone. There's such a thing as a proportional response, and this from the admins is not it.
To add to the mess, we recently felt it necessary to implement a broad "no transgender discussion of any kind" policy on KiA (Reddit, not here) to head off the rather insane Anti-Evil removals and warnings/suspensions issued, including a warning issued to me personally for using the term "chick-with-a-dick" in reference to Polly from HuniePop2 as "promoting hate". When I approached the admins to get clarification on their policy, including a request for a full list of what they consider to be "trans-related slurs", I was given the run around with half-scripted answers before I asked to be escalated to a senior community team member. My request was never escalated, and it now turns out that the admin who gave me the run around was the admin at the center of all this drama. That makes the admin decision a total conflict of interest regarding actual sitewide policy enforcement.
All this put together - the bans, hard comment removals, link blocks, and the direct policy interactions with this admin - have caused us to make the decision to speak up the best way we can to make reddit take notice, by going private alongside hundreds of other subs for at least a day (we will see if it goes longer or not). We just have one benefit that most other subs do not in that we can link to a post here to more clearly explain why we are doing this, instead of just relying on a link to another post on reddit by someone who is not completely representative of our position.
A few of us will be around on and off today to maybe answer some questions, though this is almost fully in the laps of the admins to decide if they are going to continue fucking up their enforcement policies, counter to how things have been run in their own rules regarding public figures for years. Our own Rules 2 and 5 regarding personal info of people were built on the original interpretation of those sitewide rules with admin help. Going completely counter to that makes it impossible for anyone to enforce rules evenly, and the admins need to pull their collective heads out of their asses to understand that.
EDIT: So the admins sacrificed the employee on the altar to appease the masses, but failed to actually address any of the real issues this mess created around sitewide rules, automated moderation, etc. We are going to stay aimed at a target of roughly 24hours of staying private, in hopes that something gets addressed by a redname on that side of things. So figure somewhere in the 5am US Eastern timeframe, give or take, then the sub should be public again.
The admins seem to be on a warpath lately. I think they're teeing up for the eventual, likely inevitable "ban all wrongthink period" move.
Over on SocialJusticeInAction we just had a similar weird admin encounter. Mind you, it's not the fact that an admin gave us a poke and said "get off your asses about sitewides" that bothers me. Speaking for myself at least, real life has been kicking my ass lately and I've fallen behind on moderating, I know other mods there have had some similar problems and...yeah probably stuff IS getting through that shouldn't.
My issue is that the admin showed up like they were trying to start a dialogue, asked us if we had questions, and then went completely radio silent on us. It definitely smacks of "going through the motions" so they can claim they tried to work with us before banning us, while deliberately refusing to clarify anything so that they can set us up to fail no matter what we do because we don't know what we have to enforce.
I'll break my rule against not commenting here to point this out.
This looks very much like a message that we received at /r/sjwhate very soon before we were banned for quite flimsy reasons. The difference was that in that case, the admin cited 7 comments that he found in violation of sitewides, and that he recommended that we make a sticky announcing the changes.
We did as the Master commanded, and still two months later they found an excuse. Which led me to the conclusion that such messages from admins are the death-knell for any sub.
Maybe, maybe not. The admin in that pic is actually one of the more reasonable, "neutral" ones, so I wouldn't attribute actual malice to it just yet.
Then the aggressive responses may not help. This might explain why GammaKing went in quite hard against the 'current situation'.
I've never had an encounter with this admin. Our sjwhate admin was, coincidentally perhaps, the same admin who made the announcement on ModSupport.
Without getting into details, I've personally had very positive experience with the admin in that screenshot when resolving a sizable issue.
If they're acting in good faith, why did they go radio silent when we started asking the questions they themselves solicited?
The issue I had where I dealt with that particular admin took more than a week to resolve. Unfortunately that's the side effect of dealing with one specific admin instead of a group at once.