Wikimedia isn't a country, the global ban policy isn't a law. Any such
metaphors are honestly a bit ridiculous. The WMF bans are, for the most
part, sensitive. And that means that they all need to be, because if you
have a list of reasons that you can disclose, then any bans without comment
are going to be on a very short list of quite serious reasons. Plus, the
ones without a reason would still have the "wikipediocracy-lite" crowd that
seems to dominate this list in a fuss.

It's also worth noting that the WMF provides some basic details of global
bans to certain trusted community groups. The issue isn't with disclosure,
it's with mass disclosure.

On Feb 17, 2017 11:09 AM, "Pine W" <> wrote:

> I am glad to hear that WMF global bans are processed through multiple
> people. Still, I am deeply uncomfortable with the lack of community
> involvement in this process as well as the lack of transparency. In the US
> we don't trust professional law enforcement agencies to make decisions
> about who should go to jail without giving the accused the right to a trial
> by a jury of their peers. Unless we have lost faith in peer governance
> (which would be a radical break with open source philosophy) I think it is
> both unwise and inappropriate to have "the professionals" make these
> decisions behind closed doors and with zero community involvement in the
> process.
> I am in favor of professionals working on investigations, and in
> enforcement of community decisions to ban *after* those decisions have been
> made by the community through some meaningful due process. I oppose letting
> "the professionals" decide among themselves who should be banned.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to