Policy talk:Event ban policy

Local laws prevail

If this is a policy, it needs to call out the fact that where there is a conflict with local laws, local laws prevail.

In particular, in some states in the United States, you can't "pre-ban" a person without notifying them in advance. In some cases, this notification may need to meet specific legal requirements, such as being served in person, by certified mail, or by some other track-able method that includes proof of delivery to the actual person named in the "no trespass" order. If you can't meet these requirements - which may be the case if you don't have an address on file and the person doesn't have a published email address - the best you can do is wait for the person to show up then call the police and have the police order him off the premises and order him to stay away for the duration of the event. In some cases, such as those held on public property where the event doesn't have "exclusive use" of the property, you can't do anything until the person does something specific to become a disruption.

Again, if this page is really a policy and it will be enforced, it needs to have a clear, explicit "local laws supersede this policy" statement. Davidwr/talk 21:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

David, do you have any links to actual federal, state, or local laws (or policies) that support some of the assertions that you made here? I am not doubting your assertions -- just wondering if we might document them in some way. I have a feeling that the way the Wikimedia DC organization handled an August 2015 event ban, it may have been in violation of statutes that may govern that organization and/or the event venue. - Thekohser (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Not handy, but searching for "criminal trespass" and "criminal trespass warning" might get you what you are looking for. Davidwr/talk 00:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Since the policy applies world-wide, no doubt these issues will have been exhaustively analysed by WMF Legal. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I should hope so, given that is what they are paid to do! - Thekohser (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you define "safe" as used in "safe mental space"?

"Safe physical space" is pretty easy to understand, but "safe mental space" is open to interpretation. I started a thread on Friendly space policy to ask about the definition of "offensive", and suggest that it be defined more specifically, and concurrently with defining this usage of "safe". Klortho (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, I'm suggesting to discuss there. Klortho (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I fear that, following the protracted and inconculsive parallel discussions on a similar topic at mw:Code of Conduct/Draft, still under way after a year, there will be no clear definition of "safe" or "offensive". There is a very real risk that in the absence of a clear definition, the allegation will in practice be used, or rather abused, by whoever can shout loudest, or earliest, or longest, in a dispute, or whoever has the most status, or supporters, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the case. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I knew there must have been a mother-lode discussion that I was missing, and Talk:CoC/Draft doesn't disappoint: 36,000 words! Thanks. Klortho (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I opened a topic on Code of Conduct/Draft. Klortho (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Policy:Event ban policy/Process/10, 27, 79

Please apply 'tvar' tags Rebulka (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)