Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2012-1-06

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Re: Translations[edit]

I assume info@wikimedia.org can be substituted with a language-specific address (such as info-fr@wikimedia.org) in the translations? —Pill (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, provided that such a queue actually exists. For instance, if there's is no queue for info-xx, then it should remain at info@. Make sense? Philippe (WMF) 01:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks. —Pill (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second question: The German translation of the Terms of use currently employs the informal address pronoun du. While that's the typical address used on Wikipedia etc., it certainly is not typical (and quite out-of-place) for a legal document. However, I'm not sure if that was implemented intentionally in any way (after all, the entire terms of use sound somewhat un-lawyerish compared to other websites). Probably an issue for many other major languages as well. Thoughts? Cheers, —Pill (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not know if that's purposeful or not. I would think that, as a general rule, we should follow local custom. So, if that pronoun is generally considered inappropriate for a document like this, I'd think it would be okay to substitute whatever is customary. Philippe (WMF) 05:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preserving knlowedge as a mission[edit]

I don't see any word about preserving knowledge to future generations. Emijrp 15:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the end of the second paragraph: "We strive to make and keep educational and informational content from the Projects available on the internet free of charge, in perpetuity." WhatamIdoing 22:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the second line of the summary should be amended to read "Disseminate this content effectively and globally universally, free of charge, forever."
(I don't think we should limit ourselves to just this globe). --Filceolaire 23:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. The language that Filceolaire mentions is from our mission statement. We also included our vision statement in the first sentence in bold: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. – Our Vision Statement." We are also post-deadline. For these reasons, I submit that we leave it as is. Geoffbrigham 04:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I guess we can ammend this when we have humans potential users living off this planet :)

Truly minor[edit]

Geoff,

I apologize for not getting these trivial problems to you earlier:

  • You lost an "of America" after "United States" in 7(f), and it matters to the translators.
  • The phrases "collaboratively-edited" (appears twice) and "publicly-available" should not be hyphenated.

WhatamIdoing 17:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) Thanks for pointing this out! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 21:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Terms of Service Designed to Facilitate Falsehood[edit]

I applaud the transparency evident in explaining the reasons for the new Wikipedia Terms of Use. Wikipedia admits that they "constantly receive threats of lawsuits", and seek to "reduce costs" inherent in litigation. The new Terms of Use seek to clarify and underscore Wikipedia's position that it is merely a content host, not a content creator. Under the DMCA, content hosts are not liable for any false and defamatory content posted by users.

However, it is high time to re-examine the notion that Wikipedia is merely a content host. In fact, Wikipedia has policies in place, methods in use, and agents in action. These policies, methods and agents can, and do actively SHAPE Wikipedia content.

As an example, I offer the recent battle regarding the Wikipedia biography about me. I have earnestly, diligently been trying to edit the article to remove a statement that is a) false and b) un-sourced. Wikipedia administrators have acted to prohibit me from editing the article, while taking no action against other editors intent on maintaining the falsehoods.

Clearly Wikipedia is an actor, not merely a host. Thus, by all rights, it should be called upon to face responsibility for its content. The effort to channel disputes into its own dispute resolution forum, rather than an independent arbitration, is a clear effort to subvert justice. Obviously ANY agency possessing the right to arbitrate its own disputes is going to find in its own favor, in all cases. This is a no-brainer. Of course Wikipedia could save money by never having to defend a lawsuit. We could save billions of dollars by closing down the civil justice system completely. I trust that the astute reader can readily discern the problem with that approach, and apply it to the present matter.

It's not surprising to me that Wikipedia gets sued a lot. Perhaps it's because Wikipedia is systematically tortious. It's a definite possibility in my mind. I'm not aware that Wikipedia have offered an alternate explanation for their legal troubles, and clearly there is a problem. A key element in a just solution is to abandon anonymity in dispute resolution. Courts of law are a PUBLIC forum, and with very good reason. Real people, with real identities, can be held accountable. Any disputes on Wikipedia should be PUBLIC proceeding, i.e, with REAL NAMES and identities. I, for one, am sick and tired of anonymous individuals perpetrating provable falsehoods upon my name and reputation. That's why I oppose the effort to make Wikipedia even less accountable than it already is (if that's possible).

Sincerely,

Alexander "Ace" Baker

Ace Baker 02:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of this dispute but some quick observations that might help:
  1. Have you tried our OTRS team? They handle a lot of biographical issues like this and are very skilled at doings so, and this also allows the issue to be separated from on-wiki discussion or individuals if it's got to a point nobody is listening to anyone. If you have, and it's gone nowhere, can you email me the OTRS ticket number and I'll take a quick look to see what's gone on.
  2. You need to distinguish "Wikipedia" the collaborative project and hosted website, "Wikipedia" the community of volunteer members of the public including administrators who handle content, and the Wikimedia Foundation which legally hosts the computer servers on which the site resides and has quite probably had nothing to do with any dispute in any legal sense. Your complaints seem to be about members of the public who have not helped you, and the site they create which you wish to complain about content.
FT2 (Talk | email) 03:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The distinctions to which you point are precisely what I'm on about. I'm aware that Wikipedia prefers a construction under which they are a neutral host, and in which the "community" edits articles. I'm saying that reality doesn't support that construction. In reality, there is an entity "Wikipedia", that does have an agenda. Wikipedia has policies in place, methods in use, and agents in action. These policies, methods and agents can, and do actively SHAPE Wikipedia content. Of course Wikipedia would prefer to define their potential liability out of existence. That's what's taking place. Actually, it's long since taken place. Ace Baker 03:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of definition is probably going nowhere. The law currently endorses a model where a web host, and members of the public placing web pages on servers managed by that host, are legally different and (broadly and simply) neither is responsible for the acts of the other. If you feel there are demonstrable inaccuracies in your biography, then please do see my comments above though. (Be aware that the user page there also isn't suitable to host under userpage guidelines, but that's a completely different issue, unrelated to accuracy or inaccuracy). FT2 (Talk | email) 03:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the "issue of definition" isn't "going anywhere". That's my point. Wikipedia attorneys have quite brilliantly formulated a construction under which they can, when they so choose, systematically violate the rights of individuals with immunity. Wikipedia is automatically immune, while editors and admins are anonymous. They've defined liability out of existence. Evidently the present system is slightly imperfect, so they are now trying to patch any remaining cracks by moving all dispute resolution in-house. You refer me to OTRS. Let me guess: OTRS is an in-house dispute resolution service operated by Wikipedia agents whose decisions are binding, yet whose true identities are top secret. Have I got that about right?Ace Baker 04:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a volunteer trying to help your specific concern, I have a choice to do nothing, or try to find ways that be practical and might help. You can accept these or assert it's probably all a conspiracy and scorn the offer. I am not into games. The suggestion would not have been made if I thought it was pointless, and that suggestion has helped others in the past (although not all people) who had similar concerns or difficulties. I don't make your choices nor the legal system, but the help I can offer, is offered. Let me know. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a page about Wiki?edia's legal problems. I only cited my own personal struggles on my bio as an illustrative example. Ace Baker 05:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I think the answer on that one is, the laws you complain about have directly made possible a huge number of socially huge websites and virtually created the web we know today. Their aim is precisely to ensure that process can happen, specifically and precisely by making clear that web hosts are not responsible for content they do not manage. I suspect more people don't want to roll that back, than do. But that's a political debate and a personal guess. Not a lot I can say on the politics so I'll drop this part of the thread. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ace, everything you say could be true, but even so -- why shouldn't the Wikimedia Foundation (which is not synonymous with Wikipedia) define the limits of its own liability? If Wikipedia is going to be the target of numerous lawsuits, it seems perfectly rational that an entity should clearly draw the boundaries on what it does and does not commit to doing, or have the responsibility to do. -Pete F 05:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, your question would be funny if it wasn't so mean. Why shouldn't Wiki?edia define the limits of its own liability? Because allowing an entity, ANY entity, to define its own potential liability out of existence is a license for malice. This is patently obvious. Wiki?edia has positioned itself above the law. It's a very interesting study. Ace Baker 05:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "above the law" then a court will strike it out anyway so you don't need to worry. Limitation clauses are standard in a huge range of contracts and agreements, there's absolutely nothing unusual about them. I can see how you might feel they are generically unfair and should be forbidden by law, but I'm curious - given they are currently law, do you have much luck persuading other people you choose to deal with to remove them? FT2 (Talk | email) 06:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ace, you answer your own question above. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) own the servers. English Wikipedia is just one of the projects they host. English Wikipedia is edited by a large community of editors and the WMF has very little control over them. The government of the USA has, for whatever reason, decided that, in these circumstances, the WMF has the right to disclaim responsibility for the actions of the English Wikipedia editors. These Terms of Use confirm that the WMF will take full advantage of this right. If you believe this is unjust then complain to the US congress. In the meantime you can try OTRS.Filceolaire 17:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you misconstrue. I agree that hosts should not be liable for content. Content creators should. That's the way the law reads, and I support the law. Wiki?edia's construction is something different.
I had a look at the talk page. Baker's complaint seems to be that his blog said something at one point that it no longer does. He says that the blog was hacked. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that the community's policies want that information to appear in an independent, reliable source, rather than on the talk page of the article. If he's actually a notable person (something not demonstrated by the current list of sources in that article, which are almost 100% self-published blogs and YouTube videos) and this material is important to an encyclopedic understanding of the biography, then he shouldn't have any trouble getting his denial properly published. WhatamIdoing 22:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, WhatamIdoing, you've got it wrong. Either your reading comprehension is poor, or else you're deliberately misstating the facts. You are, in fact, parroting the FALSE position I've been trying to correct. If you think I'm not notable, then delete the article. But please don't stand in support of provable falsehoods. Ace Baker 05:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? So your sentence "My blog post was hacked." means something other than you said that your blog was hacked? WhatamIdoing 17:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should rejection of WMF resolutions by communities lead to user bans?[edit]

In accordance to point 11 of ToU? See for instance w:Wikipedia talk:Follow the principle of least astonishment. ASCIIn2Bme 09:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Authorized users" (section 10)[edit]

This part does its job poorly and leaves legal loopholes. It unnecessarily introduces a new formal term "Authorized Users", doesn't cover local policies although it mentions them, and begs questions ("authorized" by whom? WMF?). Try this refactor:

"Wikimedia communities create and maintain policies to ensure the smooth running of each of our Projects. These may specify expectations on your conduct, procedures to follow, or authorize action to be taken in certain circumstances, including but not limited to investigating, blocking, or banning users who violate those policies. When you visit one of our Projects you agree to be bound by its policies and rules as well as policies set out by the Foundation. You also agree to... (etc as before)"

FT2 (Talk | email) 17:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FT2. Not sure what the problem is here. We do say: "Authorized members of the Wikimedia community are those users who have specific authorization to act, and must so act, within a defined scope of action pursuant to written community or Foundation policy." This phrase was subject to community discussion, so I'm reluctant to change unless there is a clear legal flaw. Always listening to you, FT2.  :) Geoffbrigham 01:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is when one compares what it's trying to cover with what it actually says.
Paraphrasing a little, it currently says - members of our communities may be authorized to take action related to certain matters (presumably those matters listed previously). The people authorized to do so are "those users who have specific authorization to act" and who must keep within a community or WMF policy.
  1. It's clumsy. (And may be somewhat hard to understand.)
  2. It doesn't actually explain the position of community policies or impose any requirement to follow them, which it usefully could.
  3. It focuses on the users who may execute an action (irrelevant), what the users may do, and users' authorization (irrelevant), rather than policies and actions policies may permit.
  4. It artificially creates a divide between "those members authorized to act" and presumably, "those with no authorization to act". When a class is formally highlighted in this way, it can legally open a range of begging questions - Who "authorizes" them? Who is answerable for the decisionsof "Authorized Members"? What supervision of these "Authorized Members" might a lay-person reasonably have expected? What about "Unauthorized Members"? What are the responsibilities and obligations of admins and others with access to ban or block? It's completely unnecessary to open that whole minefield in the context of TOU, and these questions are truly best just not opened or begged. Keep it simple.
What it's trying to say is that individual projects may create policies covering various things, including allowing for blocks, bans etc of violators in certain circumstances. That's all.
There is simply no need to bring in a concept of "Authorized Members" to explain this point. Focusing upon the users approved to execute policies this way makes the wording off-topic, more messy and legally loopholed, compared to just describing policies. There's no need at all to state that some users are authorized to carry those policies out (obvious), or who authorizes those users to do so, or that they must follow project rules (internal stuff not TOU) etc etc. That's all completely irrelevant here.
It also omits the key point that a user visiting a project agrees to follow its policies.
It's simpler just to explain the core point without diverging off into who the agents of policies are and that they are "Authorized" - 1/ project policies exist, 2/ what they typically cover (eg expected conduct, procedures, and actions that may be taken), 3/ the user agrees to follow policies when visiting a project, and 4/ the policies may allow actions, including but not limited to blocks, bans etc, in case of violation.
FT2 (Talk | email) 01:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, FT2. I will focus on this on Wednesday (since I'm in meetings all day tomorrow). Big picture, I would like to avoid changing too much since this was negotiated language and we are post-deadline. If you have any time (and I know you are busy), it would be helpful if you could propose a draft that is based on the existing language. Fewer changes are better. ;- We do state already in the Overview section: "you should follow the policies that govern each of the independent Project editions." It was asked whether there could be a provision that made clear that ArbCom decisions (in addition to the policies) should be followed; the language we came up with was to address ArbComs and other community bodies who enforce policy. If you don't have time, no prob. I will think about it more as well. Cheers. Geoffbrigham 06:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Solved, I think! A good tip. I just deleted the first 3 words, so it starts "The Wikimedia community may also take action..." Since that sentence then wouldn't mention "Authorized members", the entire parenthesized sentence can be removed, solving the entire problem (that sentence didn't add anything to Usage but merely defined "Authorized Members"). Anyhow, taking action "according to policies" is precisely the authorization any user ever has or needs. Result:
"Authorized members of The Wikimedia community [and its members] may also take action according to the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition, including but not limited to investigating, blocking, or banning users who violate those policies. (Authorized members of the Wikimedia community are those users who have specific authorization to act, and are so constrained to act, within a defined scope of action pursuant to written community or Foundation policy.) You also agree to comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees); these decisions may include sanctions as set out by the policy of the specific Project edition."
FT2 (Talk | email) 06:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I'm fine with that, but I need to reflect on it more and want to hear from others who are following this issue. What would you propose that we say in Section 12? Many thanks for your time on this. Geoffbrigham 09:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, trivial matching edit. I note that we may terminate services or block someone even if not absolutely "necessary" on a strict reading, so this word is best removed (is it strictly "necessary" to remove a service or block a vandal? We could just revert them 200 times a day...). The reference "as described in s.10" makes clear how and when "members of the community" may do so (ie "according to policies"):
"In certain (hopefully unlikely) circumstances it may be necessary for either ourselves either we or authorized members of the Wikimedia community (as defined described in Section 10) to may terminate part or all of our services, ...".
FT2 (Talk | email) 13:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
FT2 is a former member of the Arbitration Committee on en:wp who, faced with an inevitable ban from the Project for gross misconduct, voluntarily handed in his advanced permissions. The existing wording of Sections 10 and 12 is to prevent abuse of power. By eliminating the concept of functionaries ("authorised members") and grades of functionaries with different powers ("authorised acts") he is opening a can of worms which will see large numbers of members with no powers or limited powers arguing that they can do absolutely everything.

Such misbehaviour has been a problem throughout Wikipedia's existence. One example will suffice. On en:Talk:Mercedonius you will see an example of POV pushing which is unlikely to be surpassed in 1,000 years. One editor who pointed to the problems of this article became the subject of never - ending abuse, reversions, blocks and page protections over a wide area of Wikipedia which has continued for years with no sign of slackening off.

At one point a community ban discussion was arranged without notifying the editor. Uninvolved editors (who are the only members whose views form a consensus in such discussions) chose not to participate, and the motion was "passed" on the consensus of the involved administrators who orchestrated the persecution. 217.169.37.146 16:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to check your facts. (And not evade blocks when banned at AN for sockpuppetry and vandalism). I handed them in as a voluntary request in October 2009 close to a year after any issues ended, the Arbcom announcement is here (notice the words "requested temporary removal"?), and the reason was time pressure. Feel free to check, then correct your post.
You also need to check your reading of the text. Nowhere does it say that "Authorized Members" are functionaries. Since we're discussing blocks and bans, they are more likely to be administrators, but the point is, the term itself is not needed. The whole purpose of that paragraph is to say "you can be blocked or banned by local policies" and we don't need to define the agents of an action to say that an action can happen. We need to say a policy may allow the action (and will usually say who can do it, but we don't need to go into that in TOU). FT2 (Talk | email) 23:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Geoff, I apologize for dropping out of sight for a few days, but I'm not really happy with these changes. It currently reads:
Authorized members of the Wikimedia community may also take action according to the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition, including but not limited to investigating, blocking, or banning users who violate those policies. (Authorized members of the Wikimedia community are those users who have specific authorization to act, and are so constrained to act, within a defined scope of action pursuant to written community or Foundation policy.)
Okay: When it comes to enforcing the COPYVIO policy by reverting the addition of copyrighted matieral, I am—just like every single other user in existence—an "authorized member of the Wikimedia community". But I am not actually "constrained to act" within the community or Foundation policies about removing copyright violations. I'm a volunteer. I am perfectly free to ignore copyvios, and this will remain true no matter how stridently the policies are worded.
Additionally, the non-definition here doesn't solve the original complainant's problem (now archived), which was basically that he wanted you to define the "authorization" such that he could claim that the admin who blocked him wasn't authorized to block him, or FT2's concern, which is the unnecessary focus on exactly who is authorized to take actions (a group that ranges from every single user down to a very small number of specialists, depending on the needed action), rather that focusing on the fact that violations lead to various types of actions (which range from polite requests to stop the violation all the way through indefinite all-site bans). WhatamIdoing 21:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we're raising similar concerns, re the choice or definition of the wording "Authorized"? (I hadn't realized the definition was recent). On either logic going into "Authorized Users" seems a big problem, focusing on "who is authorized" raises issues of "who is authorized for what" and "what can/can't they do" which are unnecessary for TOU and impossible to cover without a can of worms (my point) and since we're all volunteers and free to act or not act anyway (your point I think).
The TOU aim seems to be to tell the reader that they may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned in accordance with community or Foundation policies, that blocks/bans etc are authorized and regulated by project and Foundation policies (the original poster's point), and that violations of policies can lead to action (although as you say, individual positions may vary).
We don't need to discuss the agents of that policy, or what permission might be needed, or stipulate freewill to act or not. We just want to say that violations of project and Foundation policies may result in sanctions, which could include blocks/bans (your point too). Rather than agonizing over defining who is or isn't authorized (and what for, and who by), I suggested a simple reword solving that whole problem:
"Authorized members of The Wikimedia community and its members may also take action according to the community or Foundation policies applicable...".
It's accurate, simpler, and the community and Foundation policies will say who is or isn't "authorized" if applicable.
Would this resolve your concerns? FT2 (Talk | email) 23:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see what happens if the WMF is sued as a result of actions of such "Authorized users"... The new ToU does indeed posit a much closer relationship between such users and the Foundation. ASCIIn2Bme 07:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can look at how these issues are handled outside Wikipedia for guidance, and best practice appears to be to go into detail in the hope of heading off costly litigation. In UK all employees must have a contract of employment and some of these are very lengthy documents. Wikipedia "functionaries" or administrators don't have this, with the result that some use this flexibility to game the system. In the case of the editor banned for vandalism the system was gamed twice - there was no vandalism and no consensus of uninvolved editors. WhatamIdoing has no special powers that set her apart from other editors which is the key ingredient of authorisation. So yes, Section 10 as written is helpful in that it indicates to people coming to Wikipedia for the first time that they can check the credentials of someone who tells them they are banned by looking into who authorised them, when and what for.
As for FT2's individual circumstances, senior members of the Wikimedia community have said that he made improper use of advanced permissions to obtain RL information about an individual which was made the basis of an email. I'm not qualified to judge the quality of that information, so there's no action I can appropriately take here. 156.61.160.1 14:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I don't know why a banned sock-user, vandal and repeated block evader that I've never interacted with and gets his facts wrong and then retracts admitting he can't judge the quality of it all, would be trying to make an ad hominem issue here, but I doubt any of this affects our TOU or their legal structure. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


As for the rest - the point is, that the "authorization" is in the policies themselves. For example en:wp's blocking and banning policies say who is "authorized" and what process is required for a block or ban. WP:BLOCK starts by saying blocking is used by "administrators" and is used to "prevent damage or disruption" but not to "punish". It states when blocks may be used and when they may not, as well as how to appeal them, administrator consultations, and the unblocking process. WP:BAN is similar and has clear sections of types of ban, who may implement them, the required process (including safeguards and venue for community bans) and how they may be enforced, revoked, or appealed. I think most developed projects have similar kinds of policies.
So when you ask "who is authorized to block/ban" or "what authorization does a user need to block/ban someone" the answer is, they're valid questions but we don't need to cover them in TOU. The "authorization" and the users "authorized" for any action, including blocks and bans, are already stated in the policies on blocks and bans. TOU saying that actions such as blocks and bans may take place "according to Project and Foundation policies" automatically includes all of that anyway.
For example, suppose a user was somehow declared "banned" by one or more users in a way that the policy didn't authorize, or by a process that wasn't proper. Then the action wasn't "in accordance with the policy". If the ban was done "in accordance with the policy" that automatically means whoever did it was "authorized", because "in accordance with policy" means the policy was followed, including the parts that say who may do it and how they may do it. So TOU doesn't need repeat all that for all 200+ projects. It only needs to say violating users may be blocked/banned etc in accordance with project and Foundation policies. That says it all, legally speaking. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing. I'm listening to you, especially given your strong participation in the past on this issue. May I ask a favor? Would you be so good to give me a proposed draft of this phrase that takes into account your points and those with which you agree in this discussion? If so, I will try to work off of that as a draft. If you don't have time, I will figure it out tomorrow (when I close the discussion). Thanks. Geoffbrigham 14:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a first draft, which may be helpful to you (and which you are free to ignore if it's not):
In their role as the primary enforcer of policies, Authorized members of the Wikimedia community may also take action according to the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition, including but not limited to warning, investigating, blocking, or banning users who violate those policies. (Authorized members of the Wikimedia community are those users who have specific authorization to act, and are so constrained to act, within a defined scope of action pursuant to written community or Foundation policy.) You also agree to comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees); these decisions may include sanctions as set out by the policy of the specific Project edition.
Striking the "definition" will require a change to Section 12.
What I like about this is it eliminates the possible confusion over who's "authorized" (which varies by type of violation and desired response, e.g., admins are authorized to block users, but admins are not checkusers and therefore are not authorized for certain kinds of investigations), identifies why community members are doing this, and mentions the (by far) most common method of enforcement, which is telling someone to stop being disruptive. WhatamIdoing 17:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing - Our suggestions seem almost identical. I'm reposting them side by side to compare, along with my suggestion for section 12 (you said a change would be needed but without proposing specific edits). The only difference is you state that users are the primary enforcers of policy. I don't think even that needs saying.
Grey = same/unchanged in both.
  • FT2 s.10: "The Wikimedia community and its members may also take action according to the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition, including but not limited to warning, investigating, blocking, or banning users. You also agree to comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees); these decisions may include sanctions as set out by the policy of the specific Project edition."
    (includes 2 of your edits I agree with - add "warning", delete "who violate..", since users may warn or investigate yet ultimately conclude they didn't "violate policies")
  • WhatAmIDoing s.10: "In their role as the primary enforcer of policies, members of the Wikimedia community may also take action according to the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition, including but not limited to warning, investigating, blocking, or banning users. You also agree to comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees); these decisions may include sanctions as set out by the policy of the specific Project edition."
  • FT2 s.12 (does this work for you?): "In certain (hopefully unlikely) circumstances it may be necessary for either ourselves either we or authorized members of the Wikimedia community (as defined described in Section 10) to may ..."
Thoughts? FT2 (Talk | email) 18:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


What the enforcement process resolves to eventually is often a simple "It’s your word against mine – prove your case." Community policies don’t indicate who is telling the truth. Today FT2 was alleging that an editor was "a banned sock – user, vandal and repeated block evader." How an editor with one account can manage to use socks is not explained, and neither is how he can then be blocked for a non – existent offence and subsequently blocked for evading a block for a non – existent offence. Is FT2 justified in calling someone a vandal without providing evidence of vandalism ? (He’s welcome to look but he won’t find any because the allegation is untrue). He earlier criticised me when I reported someone else’s allegations without providing evidence (which I can’t do because I don’t have access to it).

What is WhatamIdoing’s rationale for omitting the part of Section 10 which says that an editor can only be blocked for something he has done wrong? Both proposed versions give the impression that anybody can ban anybody else provided they act within policy. Geoff’s wording explains a complicated situation without creating false impressions in anybody’s mind. I don’t think it’s impossible to provide a comprehensive summary in the Terms of use. How about something like

GUIDE TO YOUR RIGHTS AS A USER

If someone curtails your ability to enjoy the site check

· Have they been given any power?

· If yes, has it subsequently been taken away?

· If no, could you have committed the alleged offence?

· If yes, does the person imposing the sanction have power to impose that particular sanction?

· If yes, was that sanction imposed in a manner permitted by policy?

62.140.210.130 19:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing hasn't removed anything that says "an editor can only be blocked for something he has done wrong". His version says that actions (including blocks/bans etc) can be taken "according to the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition". You might not accept it, but on any given project, the project and Foundation policies are what define what is "wrong" (or rather, sanctionable), who has or hasn't "power", and any processes, for Community purposes.
So actually, "Anybody can ban anybody else provided they act within policy" is correct. Same as anyone can arrest anyone if that arrest is done within the law. Same as anyone can revert, remove text, merge articles, PROD pages, or seek RFC, provided it's within policy. Provided they act within policy is what counts.
It seems WhatamIdoing's wording has summed it up so you understand it. He's done a good job. There's nothing more to say. I agree.
FT2 (Talk | email) 21:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does FT2 refer to WhatamIdoing as "he"? She removed the bit which says banning users who violate these policies. I see that phrase has now disappeared from FT2's own draft. So someone might write into community policies a provision allowing for "no fault" banning. In such a case, an editor with 10 years service and 100,000 productive edits could be banned without ever having set a foot wrong because the ban was "within policy". As for the suggestion that anyone can ban provided that they keep within policy, please tell me how to do it and I will personally ban all those people who have ever told lies about me.
It's a basic principle of the common law that a principal is liable for the acts of his agent. It's unlikely that this will have been modified in the US in the time since independence. The administrators are agents of WMF - they were created when the site expanded so much that Mr Wales devolved some of his powers to ensure its continued smooth running in the future.
FT2 has highlighted the case of an editor who, despite having done nothing wrong, is described in notices as a serious offender whose continued presence would threaten the integrity of the website. Such claims have lawyers salivating at the thought of huge damages and consequently enormous fees.
By including the user rights guide in the Terms of service WMF is signalling that it is aware of the problem and sympathetic to people who have had their reputations shredded in this manner. This in turn makes it more likely that the victims will look to an "in house" resolution of the matter rather than seek outside help. 156.61.160.1 10:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Indeed, that phrase "has now disappeared". WhatamIdoing was right. It implied "investigation" could only occur if users "violate policies". That's illogical since the purpose of investigating disputes or user conduct is to decide whether violations took place.
  2. Yes, correct, you do understand. Someone could write that into policy and if the community agrees (ie it isn't removed and it's endorsed by consensus, which is also a policy), then it would become the policy of the community.
  3. Administrators existed from 2001 [1], 4 months after the site was created and long before the site "expanded so much" etc. WMF was created in 2003.
  4. Here is how any user "A" can ban any user "B" provided they keep within policy:
    • "A" must choose the desired type of ban they want to give "B" (banning policy lists the options).
    • "A" must follow a process listed within banning policy, namely give such good reasons for their wish to ban "B" that the community, ArbCom, WMF (unlikely) or Jimbo Wales (unlikely) will decide to agree, as required. Be aware that policy also says a community ban is only likely if other users will agree with "A" that "B" has "exhausted the community's patience".
    • "A" must be careful to follow applicable policies as they do these things. For example, "A" must not post on-wiki (even to request a ban and whether as an IP or otherwise) if him/herself blocked or banned; must not act disruptively in making or trying to prove a point; must not make Wikipedia a battleground; if he/she wants ArbCom consensus request it via a case at RFAR; and must not engage in harassment, tendentiousness, personal attacks (including poorly evidenced claims) in doing so, since those actions all violate policies.
  5. The "user guide" you propose is worthless. The answer to every question is: "If policies say so". (The answer to the third is because opinions may differ and policies specify what views carry what weight and how decisions on any action may be made.)
  6. The salivating lawyer will know what they can do if they suffer a saliva excess.
FT2 (Talk | email) 14:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WMF currently does not allow the community to ban the innocent because it wants to be seen as fair. That's a view they're entitled to take and in my view it's the correct one. It's ridiculous to claim that banning users who violate these policies prohibits investigation. They are independent processes.
If user B is the editor highlighted by FT2, his list of things which must not be done (which were done in that case) is a perfect analysis of what was done wrong in that case. It demonstrates that A cannot ban B at all, but must refer the case to others who then make the decision.
The purpose of the user rights guide is to direct the reader to those sections of policy which are relevant. If the answer to all the questions is "If policy says so" that shows that the correct questions are being asked. As for question 3, FT2's stance now is that no editor may be sentenced until a community discussion has taken place to consider whether an offence has been committed. Policies cannot specify what views carry what weight - that's the job of the administrator who closes the discussion. 82.198.250.7 16:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the WMF does permit the community to ban "the innocent". The WMF permits local communities to ban just about anyone they want as long as the community (not "the innocent") believes there's a good reason for it. The WMF additionally permits local communities to establish any method of banning users that seems good to them. A community discussion is not mandated by the WMF, although it happens to be one of several options commonly used on the English Wikipedia, and the only option that can be invoked by any editor. Other methods could be used: if a local community wanted to appoint you as sole user entitled to enact or revoke bans, then that's likely to be okay with the WMF. That is, after all, the basic method currently used on many of the very smallest projects.
In particular, and relevant to the instant case, the WMF definitely permits communities to ban users who claim to be innocent out of one side of their mouths while actively confessing to serious policy violations (e.g., block evasion using IPs) out of the other. WhatamIdoing 16:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok folks. Here is my resolution of this tough issue. Thanks for the discussion.

Section 10 now reads in part: The Wikimedia community and its members may also take action when so allowed by the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition, including but not limited to warning, investigating, blocking, or banning users who violate those policies. You agree to comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees); these decisions may include sanctions as set out by the policy of the specific Project edition.

Section 12 now reads in part: In certain (hopefully unlikely) circumstances it may be necessary for either ourselves or the Wikimedia community or its members (as described in Section 10) to terminate part or all of our services, terminate these Terms of Use, block your account or access, or ban you as a user.

Cheers. Geoffbrigham 01:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works enough for me. (a) "When so allowed" = "according to"; (b) "but not limited to" deals with the condition "who violate..."; (c) although section 12 says some actions "may be necessary" (legal necessity is hard to prove and easy to dispute which is a worry) it doesn't override, impede or diminish s.10 which allows actions that even if not strictly "necessary" are allowed by policy (consensus/IAR included) or for other reasons. Hopefully being explicit about rewording "according to" = "when so allowed by policy" might address some of the concerns of some others. So I'm happy the issues are covered. I hope WhatamIdoing will be too when he sees it. Thanks Geoff! FT2 (Talk | email) 01:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the changes are all fine. Thank you for persisting with this long discussion. WhatamIdoing 16:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to WhatamIdoing above, in the case she refers to it wasn't the required majority of uninvolved editors who forced the motion through, it was administrators who were intimately involved. The editors themselves think the contributor got a raw deal. See en:User talk:Chris Bennett#ip. Nobody confessed to serious policy violations. There was a pre - emptive block designed to forestall abuse of multiple accounts, but editing from a single account plus IPs never constituted abuse of multiple accounts. 82.198.250.7 18:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Headache sentence[edit]

"To ensure that disputes are dealt with soon after they arise, you agree that regardless of any statute or law to the contrary, any claim or cause of action you might have arising out of or related to use of our services or these Terms of Use must be filed within the applicable statute of limitations or, if earlier, one (1) year after the pertinent facts underlying such claim or cause of action could have been discovered with reasonable diligence (or be forever barred)."

IANAL... Is there any way this sentence could be chopped up, and still mean the same thing? I've tried to translate it a few times now, and got stuck every time; having trouble fully understanding the English version, even... --Siebrand 20:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try this. It's not easy to improve and spliting it up risks losing the legal cohesion that all parts hinge together. I've had a go. I did remove 2 words that might have legal significance, "related to use of our services or...", because it made it simpler, didn't seem to harm it, and anyhow a claim might conceptually "arise out of or relate to our services" in ways that are arguably not due to "use of" them, in some unforeseeable matter. Maybe this'll be a helpful starting point.
"To ensure that disputes are dealt with soon after they arise, you agree that – regardless of any statute or law to the contrary – any claim or cause of action you might have that arises out of or relates to our services or these Terms of Use, must be filed before the expiry of any applicable statutes of limitations or, if earlier, one (1) year after the pertinent facts underlying your claim or cause of action could have been discovered with reasonable diligence, and that they will otherwise be forever barred."
FT2 (Talk | email) 20:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting might help translators as well, if it's got to be long sentences. For example compare possible uses of simple formatting for the last part:
"...must be filed before the expiry of any applicable statutes of limitations or if earlier one (1) year after the pertinent facts underlying your claim or cause of action could have been discovered with reasonable diligence, and that they will otherwise be forever barred."
"...must be filed before (A) the expiry of any applicable statutes of limitations, or if earlier (B) one (1) year after the pertinent facts underlying your claim or cause of action could have been discovered with reasonable diligence, and that they will otherwise be forever barred."
"...must be filed before the earlier of (A) the expiry of any applicable statutes of limitations, or (B) one (1) year after the pertinent facts underlying your claim or cause of action could have been discovered with reasonable diligence, and that failing this, they will be forever barred."
FT2 (Talk | email) 20:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Siebrand, this is my German translation, don't know if that's of any help to you (just thought it may be given that you provided other German translations). Cheers, —Pill (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry folks. We are post-deadline here, and it would be unfair to those who have already commented to reopen this issue. We are looking internally at the user agreement as now drafted with the community. If we have significant changes, we will return to the community for a one-week discussion. If we decide to modify this provision discussed above, that may be an opportunity to raise the issue. Cheers. Geoffbrigham 01:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --Siebrand 14:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Geoff, now a new can of worms is open [2]. As I said, all talk is useless... (dont know when I talked about the above mentioned part - was it September/October?) --Angel54 5 02:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity in section 1[edit]

The division between what the WMF does and what the community does is a subtle distinction which is not obvious to our readers and beginning editors.

In section 1 a) the word "we" appears 7 times. I think there is a case to replace all of these with "the WMF". We (meaning the community i.e. the people the editor will actually meet) certainly do 'take an editorial role'. Filceolaire 17:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, any such clarification would go the other way around, because the agreement is between the WMF and the user, not between the user community and the individual user. WhatamIdoing 20:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So u prefer to disturb any kind of discussion?--Angel54 5 22:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cause I dont want to have that agreement, u see? If the WMF wants it - so what? They are talking about - was it SOFA, at the moment,

or did I do an error in spelling?--Angel54 5 22:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WAID, I wasn't very clear was I. At present this section says "We do not take an editorial role". I think that is confusing to new editors coming to the TOU page because someone is surely taking an editorial role. To fix that I believe it should say "The WMF does not take an editorial role".--Filceolaire 22:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1, U got it.--Angel54 5 15:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were perfectly clear; I just disagree. "We" is defined at the top of the agreement: "The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (“we” or “us”), is a nonprofit charitable organization..." "We" does not refer to your fellow users at any point in this agreement. In fact, I think it would be inappropriate, because the agreement is not between you and your fellow users. The agreement is solely between you (the individual user) and the WMF. The WMF is writing the agreement, and therefore the WMF appropriately refers to themselves in the first-person in this agreement. WhatamIdoing 16:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just read this comment. The agreement is before the Board as of today, so I don't believe we can change now. But, if this becomes really important from a cosmetic perspective, we can discuss a technical amendment at the right time. Appreciate the discussion. Geoffbrigham 23:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of use are now before the WMF Board of Trustees for consideration[edit]

After an internal review, WMF staff will be proposing no additional changes or amendments to the proposed terms of use. I therefore recommended that the Board replace the present terms of use with the proposed terms of use. That recommendation was forwarded to the Board today for consideration. Many thanks again for everyone's hard work on this project. Geoffbrigham 23:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Communication sent to Board

 

Background

For more than 140 days, the Wikimedia community reviewed, drafted, and redrafted the terms of use with more than 200 edits modifying the original proposal. While accumulating 19,000 page views, community members offered comments, edits, and rewrites. Complete or partial translations appeared in 20+ languages. With over 4500 lines of text and as many words as Steinbeck’s classic “The Grapes of Wrath,” discussion helped ensure a thoughtful process. These proposed terms of use are intended to replace our present version. It is not commonly known that our present terms are nothing more than a licensing agreement, not traditional terms of use. The new proposed terms of use represent a step forward and a more comprehensive view of the Wikimedia projects. Among other things, they provide for:

  • Better understanding: The proposed agreement includes an easy-to-read template summary to help facilitate understanding of the terms.
  • Stronger security: The proposed agreement prohibits a number of actions – like installing malware – that could compromise our systems. We thought we should be clear as to what is unacceptable in this area, though most of these restrictions will not be surprising or represent any real change in practice.
  • Clearer roles: We have heard a number of community members asking for guidance, so we set out clearly the roles and responsibilities of the community, including editors and contributors. The proposed agreement also seeks to provide guidelines to help users avoid trouble.
  • More community feedback: With this version, and with each major revision afterwards, we want the community to be involved. So the proposed agreement gives users at least a 30-day comment period before a major revision goes into effect (with Board approval). There is a 3-day exception for urgent legal and administrative changes.
  • Clearer free licensing: We feel our present agreement is somewhat confusing on the free licensing requirements. The proposed agreement attempts to explain more clearly those requirements for editors (without changing existing practices).
  • More tools against harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and other long-term issues: The proposed agreement would make clear that such acts are prohibited. Novel for us, the agreement raises the possibility of a global ban for extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed from a number of community members. While the global ban is authorized by the terms of use, it will be implemented by community policy.
  • Better legal protection: The proposed agreement incorporates legal sections that are commonly used to help safeguard a site like ours, such as better explanation of our hosting status as well as disclaimers and limitations on liability for the Foundation.

More detailed reasons why we are proposing updated terms of use are set out here. Suffice it to say, we are consistent with other like-minded organizations, which have incorporated similar agreements, including Internet Archives, Creative Commons, Mozilla Firefox, Open Source Initiative,Project Gutenberg, Linux Foundation, Stack Exchange, WikiSpaces, and Word Press.com.

Specifically, in its more than 320 printed pages of discussions, the community raised, discussed, and resolved more than 120 issues. There were many substantive and editorial changes that greatly improved the document. Much language was deleted or tightened at community request. As part of this process, the community addressed a number of interesting topics, such as:

  • Whether we should emphasize that the community (not WMF) is primarily responsible for enforcing policy: We agreed to underscore this primary responsibility of the community to avoid any confusion.
  • Whether we should include an indemnification clause to the benefit of WMF: We chose to delete it in light of community concerns.
  • Whether we should adopt a “human-readable” version to facilitate understanding: We agreed to incorporate such a summary.
  • Whether we should expressly prohibit linking to certain sites: We chose not to, deleting earlier language unacceptable to the community.
  • Whether we should require civility and politeness: With varying views, we decided to “encourage” it.
  • Whether the WMF should provide resources to support forks: We chose not to address this now, though we agreed to highlight the discussion to the Board for its consideration. *Please find the most relevant discussions on forking here and here.
  • Whether we should emphasize the independent roles of chapters: We chose to do so.
  • Whether we should increase the liability limitation for WMF from $100 to $1000: We answered affirmatively.
  • Whether we should provide for additional comment time after the posting of translations in three key languages: We said “yes” to address international community concerns.

Needless to say, this project would have been impossible without the hard work and expertise of our community. Through their tireless effort, the community mentored important and deep discussions on critical subjects for Wikimedia. The process forced us to think about issues that we had never addressed directly. In short, the value of collaboration quickly became obvious. Its magic created a document many times better than the original.

Many thanks to Philippe, Maggie, Steven, Michelle, Kelly, Matt, and others at WMF for their hard work on this project.

Proposed Resolution

As General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation, I hereby propose the following resolution for approval by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation: Resolved, that, upon recommendation of the General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation and upon review and consideration of the extensive community discussions on the subject, the Board of Trustees hereby approves to substitute the current terms of use, which is presently found here, with the proposed terms of use, which is presently found here.

If the Board would find it useful, I will be happy to discuss the proposed terms of use in detail during its February meetings. I do request approval of the new proposed terms of use at those meetings if the schedule of the Board so allows.

Regards,

Geoff

Geoffrey Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

Preserved from automated archival. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Disclaimer for §7 (g) and (h)[edit]

If and when these Terms are again updated, I think it would be worthwhile to consider adding a statement to the section on reuse indicating the following:

  • As a movement, we make our best effort to ensure that content hosted on our projects is reusable under a free license; but that it is the responsibility of the reuser to make sure that is the case. Because:
    1. A great deal of copyright-violating content is uploaded (both text and media) to our projects, and we can never perfectly ensure that we catch all of it; and
    2. Some contributors (minors) may not be legally qualified to adopt the license required for participation, and we often have no idea who is how old. (cf this discussion: Talk:Legal and Community Advocacy#Minors on Wikimedia projects)

-Pete F (talk)

Disabling auto-archiving bot for the time being[edit]

MiszaBot, a script that automatically archives talk pages, was activated here to support the active editing and deliberation around the new TOU ultimately adopted in spring 2012. This was a needed and appropriate tool at the time; now that there is no daily ongoing discussion, though, I think it is better to have the page not auto-archive. I believe that for the foreseeable future, people will bring observations and ideas to this page on a time scale of months, as opposed to minutes; so I've turned the auto-archiving off (by commenting out the relevant code above), and I think we should consider turning it back on only if and when people start adding new ideas here much more frequently. (And if so, I would like to see some mechanism for capturing and summarizing these discussions if they have not yet been acted upon.) -Pete F (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed[edit]

Moved to Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#Opposed

What services are covered by the terms of use[edit]

The introduction says "we provide the essential infrastructure and organizational framework for the development of multilingual wiki Projects and their editions", but then it continues to refer to "Our projects" (linking to wmf:Our projects and has a section "Our Services" which are very wiki-centric, and indicates project content is generally under a free license or is public domain (I cant see where adding non-free content is allowed..?). Every wiki page has a link to the terms of use.

WMF hosts other infrastructure, using software other than wiki, such as mailman, bugzilla, gerrit, etc, etc. and the userbase is largely the same sets of people. Does the new Terms of use cover content in these other parts of the WMF infrastructure that used by the public?

It would seem like an oversight to have written in the TOU that "Transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to other users" is not permitted, but the definitions dont clearly include mailing lists.

Bugzilla footer includes a link to mw:Bug_management/Bugzilla_etiquette which has a different intention to the Terms of use, and the mailman footer doesnt include anything at all. Some mailing lists have included some useful notes, such as this note about privacy implications of posting on a public list. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's simple, only the services which link the ToU use them. However, WMF expressed a wish to change the ToU, see Talk:Privacy_policy/Archives/2013#“the Wikimedia Foundation” / “the Foundation” / “WMF” / “we” / “us” / “our” and especially Talk:Privacy_policy/Archives/2013#"Wikimedia Sites". --Nemo 06:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I do hope there will be consistency in terminology between the Privacy policy and the Terms of use, and I agree with you that there should be less terms for the same thing. The overview section of the Terms of use says "These Terms of Use tell you about our public services at the Wikimedia Foundation, our relationship to you as a user, and the rights and responsibilities that guide us both." (emphasis added) That seems to imply all public services, or at least all that a user may have an interactive relationship with. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]