> The accomplishment of Wikipedia is not just beating the Library of Alexandria by many orders of magnitude, but doing so while keeping moderation logs in the open as well.
There is at least one exception to that rule. Users who attract the ArbCom's attention may get a general block. If they ask what they're blocked for, the ArbCom rep will tell them to read their email. These moderation decisions are not public, not even in a form with PII redacted.
There is also what's called "Oversight", which performs actions that are invisible to the public and administrators alike (though not invisible to some very privileged people)
There are also "office actions", where essentially the Wikimedia Foundation and/or its legal counsel have been required to do something. In most cases, the office actions are visible and logged, unless they've been required to use Oversight as well. But the main thing is that the office actions will generally not be explained to anyone, as it usually stems from some legal threat to Wikipedia.
And editing with an account can be very dangerous if you manage to upset somebody with clout.
They can turn content disputes into conduct disputes and conduct disputes into social contests which are either shown on ANI or quietly adjudicated with an administrator block.
The content of Wikipedia is great. Its culture, not so much.
There is at least one exception to that rule. Users who attract the ArbCom's attention may get a general block. If they ask what they're blocked for, the ArbCom rep will tell them to read their email. These moderation decisions are not public, not even in a form with PII redacted.