> > This is correct, all global bans (after a complaint has been made) go > through: > > > - Investigation by Support & Safety team member --> > - Review and Recommendation by the Manager of Trust & Safety (myself) > --> > - Approval by the Director of Support & Safety and the Chief of > Community Engagement (currently both Maggie) --> > - Approval by General Counsel (currently Michelle) or designee. > > It then comes back to us to actually press the buttons. Global Bans (as > well as Event Bans which are done via the same process) have been > incredibly rare for that very reason, we don't take them lightly and go > through a lot of review before we make the decision.
Just out of interest, is the prospective banned person involved in this in any way? You know, those quaint old deas of natural justice, hearing both sides, and so on, which we were so keen on in the Old World. More cogently, how will this interact with the process mandated by WMF Legal under the Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces, which require all complaints involving a WMF staff member to be referred to WMF Legal? Will thy adjudicate on, or issue directives to, the Code of Conduct Committee? Or are we in the situation where two separate investigations may be held leading to two divergent and inconsistent sets of actions? Is an unwarranted ban or threat thereof by a staff member a fit subject for a complaint under the Code? "Rogol" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
