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