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.

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Cristian Consonni <>

> 2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak <>:
> > 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 <>:
> > 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:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to