The previous terms contained essentially no behavioral prohibitions. I'm not sure if this was out of concern for Section 230 status, the independence of projects wrt policy making, or some other reason, but this new set of terms is a huge departure. It prohibits a broad range of unwanted activity, which raises the question: how does the WMF intend to enforce it? Would enforcing these terms threaten its immunity as a service provider? If the terms are not consistently enforced, doesn't that present its own set of liability concerns?
I'd also like to see some exceptions to the indemnity terms. The way I read it, an editor could violate a law that itself contradicts international human rights norms, and if the WMF incurred any joint liability as a result, the indemnification attempts to transfer that liability to the editor. I can see unintended consequences coming from this; even if as a practical matter the WMF can make a case-by-case decision, departing from the terms - where the terms allow no flexibility - presents its own problems. If for no other reason, stating a human rights exception to the terms would make clear Wikimedia's intention to be a good corporate citizen (a fact that is otherwise just implied by the folksy writing style.)
Nathan