<i>"Discussing bans or removals of community members, which may be seen as publishing private information without permission"</i> ... isn't that what they're doing here? Either ban people "silently" without commentary, giving them the choice whether they want to talk about it, or give 100% transparency and share the full details. Making an announcement about it that has half the (one-sided) details is just the worst possible option.<p>Things like "defending reverse racism" can mean so many things from "oh my God, that's super-racist!" to fairly benign awkward choice in language. We have no idea what it is now, but by making the accusation (without details) there will always be the air of suspicion that maybe, perhaps, they're secretly super-racist. Or something. This is an issue with a number of items on this list.<p>Not great... Whether the suspension is justified is hard to judge, but it shouldn't have made this announcement, and absolutely should not have published this list.<p>I'll also add that quite a few of these items seem to be "making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health", which is one of the accusations on the list. Posting "too much" can certainly be disruptive, saying this "creates an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty, and doubt" is just speculating about motivation. This too is an issue with several items on this list.