Wikipedia talk:Legal Bans

Village Pump

I have not listed this on the village pump - my reasoning is by avoiding doing so this policy can be fleshed out without a rush of too many chefs. If someone disagrees with me, please overturn this. Sockpuppet, permitted by WP:SOCK 19:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why?

People who are barred by a court from editing sites like Wikipedia will not make their identities public, so there is no possible way to enforce this, barring abuse of Checkuser (and even then, it'd be really hard). There's really no point to having this page. -Amarkov moo! 19:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You would be surprised what some people would do (I wouldn't advocate Checkuser abuse, obviously). I think it's plausible that there would be unexpected fringe benefits from having such a list too. Sockpuppet, permitted by WP:SOCK 19:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No over-arching policy, please

I don't think that this is a good idea. Policy is meant to deal with broad things; "legally banning" of individuals from the Internet is not a widespread criminal punishment. It should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, preferably by consulting the Arbitration Committee on their mailing list.

Additionally, listing those individuals' names on the page definitely violates WP:BLP. --Iamunknown 20:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I t should be dealt with by law enforcement agencies. The AC is not the police. Can't see the point of this page proposed policy at all. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

True. I meant that it would probably be wise to consult the Arbitration Committee, as it is my impression that they are regularly consulted when extraordinary circumstances arise (though I may be wrong). You are right, however, that they would have no means of enforcement (as they shouldn't). --Iamunknown 20:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No one needs to be involved, unless the Foundation receives a request or order from a law enforcement authority. The appropriate place for such information is an article on the person if it meets notability and BLP. At least one of the people listed here does not meet BLP, as he has not yet been convicted of any crime. Needless to say, anyone who does do this does it at his own risk, but such a person would surely be aware of it. we don';t have to protect them. Mark rejected, and oversight the names. DGG (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it to be the obligation of Wikipedia to enforce all legal bans worldwide, in the absence of a court order specifically directed at it. Bans from jurisdictions other than Florida (where Wikimedia is) might not necessarily even be enforceable legally, depending on various treaty and constitutional issues. It's also a complex judgement whether Wikipedia fits into the specific sorts of activities banned in some case; are we more like a "social networking site" or a "newsgroup" or something else entirely? Those sorts of judgments should be left to a judge, not us. *Dan T.* 22:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you believe someone's breaking the law, or violating a court-imposed ban, call the police. I'm just about seeing a G10 here, unless someone can give me a good reason otherwise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I've removed the names from the list for being BLP vios, in addition to the fact that they imply these people were banned from Wikipedia or ever even used Wikipedia, which there are no signs of --lucid 05:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what the point is here. At least in a couple cases, these individuals are barred only from using "chat rooms". While Wikipedia does have some communications facilities, I'm not sure whether or not it would be considered a "chat room", and that's a question for a judge to answer, not us. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)