Jump to content

Policy talk:Event ban policy

From Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki


Please could we clarify the status of this page? Is it a settled policy, enacted by some authority, and if so, by whom? Is it a compendium designed to summarise and unify existing policies already agreed or enacted? Is it a proposal put before the community for acceptance or rejection as it stands? Is it a draft for discussion, modification and eventual adoption by community consensus? Or what? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey Rogol, at this point this is summarizing the policy and procedures of the Wikimedia Foundation regarding Event bans which are, at this point, settled and will be required of Grantees going forward. It is placed out for the knowledge of the community and so that affiliates or other organizations can use and adapt it for their own needs if desired. It is not a proposal (in that we're not asking for modification/adoption etc), I removed the category that was erroneously placed to that effect. Obviously, as with all policies like this, I imagine we will find things that don't work out so well going forward and need adjustment based on discussion with those interested and actual implementation so it's certainly not "settled forever" but it is settled in that it is "in effect". Jalexander--WMF 05:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
A minor item, but is there a reason that the Wikimedia Foundation (a Florida corporation based in San Francisco) is leaning toward British English spelling in policy terms? - Thekohser (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's as you said: a minor item. Let's move on. -Pete F (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Rogol Domedonfors for asking, and Jalexander-WMF for addressing this. Since this is considered to be "in effect," I feel it is rather important to have a statement (perhaps in the intro or at the bottom) explaining the origin of its authority. Policy pages typically have this in some form or another: on English Wikipedia, a reader can trace the edit history and talk pages through the years; for a WMF board-approved policy, there is a record on the WMF wiki of the resolution language passed, and the vote tally. With this, presumably a policy implemented by staff, there should be some indication of who was involved the decision, what informed their thinking, and what date it was put into effect. As a bare minimum, the word "we" should be contextualized throughout the document.

To be clear (and I hope this is obvious), I'm proposing this as a good information practice, that helps a variety of stakeholders understand how things are working -- not with any sense that there is a problem with the document, that people need to be held accountable, etc. -Pete F (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

In case it's not clear, I'm suggesting to discuss there. Klortho (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
I opened a topic on Code of Conduct/Draft. Klortho (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply