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(a)luke.wf>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?".
[1]:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#12._Termination
-- LFaraone
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>