Hi.
Within the past week, Philippe has posted the Wikimedia Foundation's global ban policy: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy.
The page itself is interesting, as is some of the related discussion on the talk page. I'm not sure if wiki bans strictly fall within security theater, but it seems fairly clear that these bans are for show and not much else. It's the Internet, after all, and anyone can edit. Under the current scheme, the best we can do is try to revert and prevent bad behavior alone. Attempting to ban individuals has proved impossible.
MZMcBride
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:30 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hi.
Within the past week, Philippe has posted the Wikimedia Foundation's global ban policy: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy.
Raised it on the WMF board noticeboard, as I would expect they develop & approve something like this with staff and community input. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#WMF_G...
(sorry if it has been mentioned in some published board minutes; I didnt look)
MZMcBride <z <at> mzmcbride.com> writes:
I'm not sure if wiki bans strictly fall within security theater, but it seems fairly clear that these bans are for show and not much else. It's the Internet, after all, and anyone can edit. Under the current scheme, the best we can do is try to revert and prevent bad behavior alone. Attempting to ban individuals has proved impossible.
Users banned by the Wikimedia Foundation who continue to edit in violation of their ban may be placing themselves in possibly legally unfortunate situations, per ToU §12[1].
A Foundation ban would almost certainly be viewed as a stronger demand to desist than bans imposed by the community.
Regardless, the WMF is often better-positioned than the community to investigate certain types of issues, and as such it would make sense that they would be the entity to take the aforementioned action. The logic presented above, when taken to its logical conclusion, seems to be "why bother banning ANYONE, ever, since they can just sock?".
[1]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#12._Termination
-- LFaraone
Lfaraone, you're an English Wikipedia arbitrator only as far as I know. What gives you the authority or expertise to make assertions about the legal implications of WMF terms of use violations?
Are you a WMF employee?
Are you a lawyer?
Trillium Corsage
20.01.2015, 04:19, "LFaraone" wikipedia@luke.wf:
MZMcBride <z <at> mzmcbride.com> writes:
I'm not sure if wiki bans strictly fall within security theater, but it seems fairly clear that these bans are for show and not much else. It's the Internet, after all, and anyone can edit. Under the current scheme, the best we can do is try to revert and prevent bad behavior alone. Attempting to ban individuals has proved impossible.
Users banned by the Wikimedia Foundation who continue to edit in violation of their ban may be placing themselves in possibly legally unfortunate situations, per ToU §12[1].
A Foundation ban would almost certainly be viewed as a stronger demand to desist than bans imposed by the community.
Regardless, the WMF is often better-positioned than the community to investigate certain types of issues, and as such it would make sense that they would be the entity to take the aforementioned action. The logic presented above, when taken to its logical conclusion, seems to be "why bother banning ANYONE, ever, since they can just sock?".
-- LFaraone _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 20 January 2015 at 03:30, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The page itself is interesting, as is some of the related discussion on the talk page. I'm not sure if wiki bans strictly fall within security theater, but it seems fairly clear that these bans are for show and not much else. It's the Internet, after all, and anyone can edit. Under the current scheme, the best we can do is try to revert and prevent bad behavior alone. Attempting to ban individuals has proved impossible.
There exist people with actual restraining orders against editing; as I understand it, that's the escalation step after this.
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org