As far as I know, the Wikimedia Foundation has three main “hammers”: blocking from editing, banning from attending events, and deciding not to give grants to individuals. I would like more transparency on this, but I understand that sometimes one needs to find a balance between transparency and privacy. Imagine, that there is a user harassing and threatening another user. After looking at the evidence Wikimedia Foundation would decide to block the harasser. But it is not always actually safe just to tell the blocked user that a complaint from this or that person is the cause of this block. Especially if the risk of the harasser fulfilling his/her threats is high (like, if they know each other offline). So blocking from editing and event bans can require more looking into and must be handled with extra care. It is a bit difficult for me to imagine this kind of care needed for a decision not to give grants - it seems this “hammer” is mostly used because of procedural and disciplinary reasons, so informing a person about such a decision makes sense.
I have no context about the case you have been complaining about on the lists, so cannot offer an informed opinion about it. I have stated what I see as the general operating principles for sanctions against volunteers; and to my knowledge Wikimedia Foundation staff abides by these principles and acts professionally. If in your case there was a rare lapse of judgment, or a mistake of oversight, that is unfortunate, and it can and should be investigated within Wikimedia Foundation by appeal to the staff involved or their managers, and I am confident if that is indeed the case, it would be remedied. --アンタナナ 17:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Not understanding what the legal status of such a ban can be in Europe. Deformation, a crime. The prosecutor will shake the tree till every apple has fallen, and will not give up till the last has fallen. That is his duty. You can't hide yourself in Europe behind "clever tricks" to stay out the storm. A judge can even order to interrogate people if he or she wants more details.
Europe has a extreem unpredictable legal system. Not the lawyers lead a trail, no a extreem curieus judge. it is pretty normal a judge want to know everything from yourself including your private life before a trail really start. Things what has noting to do with the trail only to form a opinion about you as a person. And absolute not in the "Viligiant invest" style, no in a extreem friendly, human way.
The judge is extreme free in our system and can order everything. Interrogations by the "rechter-commissaris", a state lawyer. He can order experts to invest, he can invest himself. Anything as long it is not conflicting with the law. The roll of a lawyer is very limited in out legal system. He is only a adviser, a represent of you who helps you.
A pity I as a amateur, a hobby jurist (a not protected title) have to give all this explanation and mendaliv doesn't do this as a professional lawyer.
Because someone had asked him therefore, waved away by Jake with European holiday talk. He asked what the difference was for a European user and a American in a legal way is according to office bans.
But, he mendaliv, I am only a amateur so take your change to correct me.