Talk:Global bans/List

Should the "Banned by Code of Conduct Commission" section be removed? The Code of Conduct Commission no longer exists, and there shouldn't be a need to keep it there to list historical bans either given there aren't any. Since there are no bans and never will be the section can just be removed. Any objections? Naleksuh (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * While the Code of Conduct Commission no longer exists, the Code of Conduct does and Stewards fulfill the responsibilities previously held by the Code of Conduct Commission. Nevertheless, it's an empty section, so I have no objections to this, and will do so. Dmehus (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dmehus (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And,, you could change "details not available" in Banned by Trust and Safety from Mago Mágico to "vandalism". He did almost exactly that (I was the one who asked for him to be blocked on the Stewards noticeboard) and I think it would be better than a lost, standardized description. If you don't want to do that, that's fine, or even better because I don't know 100% the meaning of cross-wiki vandalism and he did several vandalisms in just on one wiki. --YellowFrogger (Talk — ✐) 21:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * YellowFrogger, no Trust and Safety would never ban someone for "vandalism." Crosswiki vandalism and abuse is a community block/lock reason. The details cannot be released as that is the current practice of the Trust and Safety team. Hope that clarifies. :) Dmehus (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on when SRE were in charge of ToU, it's not just current practice too. It's for safety reason. There's a reason we don't reveal that information. We'd 100% rather it was transparently handled by the community but it's mainly when don't have a choice. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that, too. The page does note it is for privacy reasons for the banned user in question. Safety may or may not additionally come in to play, depending on the circumstances. Dmehus (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understood, thanks for the reply. About privacy by banned users, the IP ranges of users blocked by open proxies are shown in the logs when they are locked. --YellowFrogger  (Talk — ✐) 23:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mago Mágico did technically violate the Terms of Use, so there's no question on that. Thus, the reason for his ToU ban is classified as private, meaning public details are to never get released outside of Trust & Safety and fall into the wrong hands. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @DarkMatterMan4500: everyone on the page has violated the Terms of Use in some way. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Hence the reason why such information is to never get revealed outside of Trust & Safety. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @YellowFrogger: That's not got much to do with it. It's more that saying why they were banned could put victims of abuse by users at risk and some of the information involved we may have to keep private for legal reasons. It's not about simply keeping an IP private. It's could this information be made public without potentially putting the safety and privacy of those involved at serious risk. There's also the fact that in some cases we may have to consider getting authorities involved and it could jeopardise action by them. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

List should be updated
Due to a successful global ban, shouldn't the list be updated right about now? :/ DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)