[Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of UseforReview

[Phil Nash]

Sue Gardner wrote:
> On 8 September 2011 19:01, Phil Nash <phnash at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> There's a major difference between online harassment, and robust
>> debate, although most of us can tell where we draw our own lines.
>
> Oh yikes, Phil, please don't misunderstand me! The conversations we
> were having were about one or two people who have been repeatedly
> harassing large numbers of Wikimedians for years. I am not talking
> about editors who engage in discussions and get a bit rude; I am
> talking about people who are probably seriously mentally ill.
>
> This is not a backdoor attempt to enforce kindness. We're just trying
> to support and protect editors against really very egregious
> behaviour.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue

Maybe I have missed the point, but my lawyer's/Wikimedian's mind tells me 
that hiking the TOS's is not going to have a major effect, and the effort 
into changing the TOS is arguably outweighed by the effort expended by those 
who care not for subscribing to those terms.

I think I've been around for long enough to know that not only are WM 
projects vulnerable to those with an agenda, who care not for blocks or 
bans, whether local or global; these people are committed to some agenda 
that is prepared to reject any idea of community, and proceed with that 
agenda as long, and as much as they can. I think we know of whom we are 
talking here.

But changing, and toughening up the TOS is sending the right message to the 
wrong people. Any technically savvy journalist is going to realise the 
weakness in doing that, and any committed troll/vandal/disrupter is going to 
be able to subvert any technical measures, if only by moving his/her laptop 
into a new WiFi Area and crating a new account.

As a principle, global blocking is OK; in practice, it's a non-starter, and 
changing the TOS is not going to change that unless the Foundation is going 
to institute legal proceedings in extreme cases, which it has never done, 
and brings into doubt its s.530 status. I'm aware of more than one case in 
which this could have been done, but hasn't. unless and until there is a 
real move to do that, merely changing the wording, even globally, is nothing 
more than a gesture.