It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately responsible for everything WMF does.
Personally I think the present solution is better than no solution, as cross-project disruption is not something the community is particularly well-equipped to deal with. However, Dariusz's idea of creating a volunteer group of some description to review these actions is definitely worth thinking about. Chris On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocrist...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>: > > transparency does not always have to mean full public access to > information > > (in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the > > community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a > > discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a > > community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of > reasoning > > behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as > > the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process. > > Strong +1. > > 2015-01-20 13:11 GMT+01:00 Chris McKenna <cmcke...@sucs.org>: > > 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)" > > Fair enough, then we should ask the board to oversight the process > i.e., in the end, being able to take responsability for the global ban > infliction. I would not take this as far as require a deliberation > from the BoT for global bans but it my well be a possibility. > > If this is too demanding in terms of time to create a commission to do > such a task. These people can be bound by any confidentiality terms > that the legal department consider adeguate. > > Don't want to go through community election? Create an appointed board > of external, indipendent experts for this. > (say ask somebody from EFF or similar orgs). > > C > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimediaemail@example.com > 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 Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>