20.01.2015, 18:06, "geni" <email clipped>:

> However regardless of your opinion (which is wrong but that's a secondary
> issue) of it the reasons for blocking were publicly discussed on the
> English wikipedia and can be found through enough digging through the
> relevant logs and archives. 

Thank you for informing me my opinion is wrong, but I'd appreciate specific 
refutation next time. The answer "dig through the logs and archives" will find 
no doubt many criticisms of Russavia including from many rabid and shifty 
accusers and drama mongers, but won't tell one why the WMF acted. "Do some 
homework and figure it out yourself" is no answer for an 100 million dollar 
organization with scores of employees to say.

> Sigh. Okey consider the following (which I wish to make clear is entirely
> hypothetical). The WMF is 99% sure that an editor is using Wikipedia as a
> C&C network for a bot net (yes in theory this could be done). Now it has
> two options. It can either ban the editor without giving a reason or it can
> give its reasoning and face a 1% risk of significant libel damages and
> legal costs (falsely accusing someone of running a botnet is libel). Which
> one do you think it is going to do?

You seem to have misread what I said. In such a case, the WMF could advise the 
editor of all that privately, say publicly "because of privacy or legal 
implications, we won't be specific, but we advised the individual privately," 
and that would be reasonable as far as I'm concerned.

Trillium Corsage

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to