As has been explained multiple times in multiple places, the WMF have been
advised, for very good legal reasons, not to give details.
"Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to
comment: we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the
Terms of Use for some examples - and no, "provoking Jimbo" is not on the
list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite
dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and
tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty
clearly for something "really bad", and open knowledge of that could
endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and
could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being
placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet
companies - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on
the reason for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's
followed by - and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible
company that executes this type of action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia
Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)"
from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WMFOffice#Ban_to_Russavia
Chris
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, rubin.happy wrote:
Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible.
rubin
2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa <ricordisa...@openmailbox.org>:
It is now clear that the superprotect affair was only a preliminary move.
Now they hide themselves behind a collective account <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WMFOffice> issuing batches of global
locks <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&;
type=globalauth&user=WMFOffice&year=2015&month=1> and writing boilerplate
replies <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:
WMFOffice&diff=10982297>.
As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that I
do not object global locks at all.
What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the
community interaction that Lila called so deeply for.
They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project
and global-locking any account "to protect the integrity and safety of the
site and users", actually at their sole discretion.
The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me from
leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
----
Chris McKenna
cmcke...@sucs.org
www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
