Geoff Burling wrote:
IANAL, & this is a US-centric view, but I'd go
further & say that
the possibility that a court would even hear a case like this is
unrealistic. As I understand what we are talking about concerns
simple banning -- whether or not someone could contribute to
Wikipedia for a definite or indefinite period of time. And I doubt
that as long as Wikipedia is a volunteer activity -- where no one is
making any money from contributing -- any court would find merit in
hearing the case.
I think that's totally right. Anyhow, editing the website is always a
privilege generously extended, but no one has a right to edit the
website, period. At my whim, I could start banning people for the
most random and idiotic of reasons, and there would be no legal way to
stop me. The GNU FDL protects the right to fork, of cousre, but if I
wanted to do something stupid to run the project into the ground, I
could.
"Arbitration" has to be understand in light of that, it can not create
new legal rights for random users that they don't already have.
If someone ever did decide to appeal an arbitration or banning
decision of any kind to a court, then, they'd basically be wasting
their time.
--Jimbo