Here is the current draft of a section of the proposed Wkiversity Blocking Policy ...


As a result of a specific block against a single named account, several Wikiversity Custodians (including Mike Umbricht, Mike.lifeguard, and Adam Brookes) have, over a period lasting almost two years, extended that block to range blocks that currently include 70,000 Verizon IPs in Eastern Massachusetts, 8192 IPs at the MIT Media Lab, a Class C subnet at the Utah State University School of Journalism, and the entire IPv6 network of 2^128 addresses, worldwide, which connect to MWF servers via gateways operated by the SixXS Consortium.

Let's look at the consequences of those associated range blocks. We begin with a review of this relevant passage from the governing WMF Policy ...


Does the proposed Wikiversity Blocking Policy, cited above, contravene applicable WMF Policy? May a local project abrogate the WMF commitment under its 501c3 charter without jeopardizing the 501c3 tax-free status of the WMF as characterized by the WMF Mission Statement and via associated filings with the IRS?

In order to obtain 501c3 non-profit status, WMF was obliged to make certain representations to the IRS, to the donors, and to the public. There are corresponding published guidelines such as the one cited above.

In the case of a breach in compliance with those representations, would the WMF would be justified in discontinuing a project that had departed from WMF Policies and Practices that exist to ensure compliance with the WMF Charter and Mission and with the promises the WMF made to the IRS, to the donors, and to the public?

That could well be the opinion of the IRS, and thus the opinion of the WMF Board. Do the Four Custodians of the Apocalypse wish to risk it?

Now, I personally have no objection to rogue sysops testing that possibility by knowingly departing from WMF policy and pledges associated with its 501c3 status. I would be a useful scientific experiment to test the competing hypotheses.

It occurs to me that, to the extent that a local project thumbs their nose at the WMF commitment, it either jeopardizes the 501c3 status of the WMF or (more likely) it jeopardizes the willingness of the WMF to allow an individual project to depart from the published mission and commitments to the IRS.

Are the Custodians of Wikiversity aware that IPv6 users around the world (mostly in Asia and India) are denied access because all IPv6 access to WMF servers funnels through the gateways operated by the SixXS Consortium?

Since the Enlgish Wikiversity blocks those gateways, it thereby blocks the entire IPv6 network.

There are many people in Third World countries who do not use named accounts because if they did, their governments would persecute them. So they edit as IPs to protect themselves from oppressive regimes.

If these dissidents were to use a named account, then the government only has to find but one IP match to identify someone who is critical of the regime. And then that one IP match connects the aurhor to all other writings from that named login.

Give it some thought. If you were in Iran, or North Korea, or China, would you want Adam Brookes helping those governments silence a voice of dissent?

This post has been edited by Moulton: