ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Wikipedia talk:No legal threats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia talk:No legal threats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] systematic vs. systemic?

In the line "Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systematic bias in our articles," I think the word systemic would be more appropriate. Systematic gives the wrong impression, whereas systemic implies a widespread, total bias. Just a suggestion. --HubHikari 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd be surprised if the author of that bit didn't mean systemic; WP:CSB is commonly misread as countering systematic bias. I'll have a look through the history to see who added it. Trebor 23:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, maybe I was wrong; it was "systematic" in the original version. I think changing it makes sense. Trebor 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. --HubHikari 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passive but intimidating legal FYIs

We sometimes have users who invoke the spectre of a lawsuit against the editor, without actually saying, "I'll sue you." The spectre may be in the form of, "The police will track you down for putting up obscene photos" or "Did you know that the person you are writing about could sue you for defamation?" It has been pointed out that these comments may a method of intimidating the recipient. I've seen at least two examples on AN/I in the past six weeks, and seen one other that didn't get escalated at all. How should they be dealt with? Kla'quot 05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Veiled threats are nevertheless threats. The examples you give are, at the least, treading a fine line between what is and is not acceptable, and it would not be surprising if, in the right circumstances, such comments led to a block (particularly the first one). Remember that the blocking policy comprehends blocks for not only legal threats, but personal or professional threats if they are "in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user". To a degree what is decisive is the tone of what is said, more than the substance.
My advice to people who feel the need to give FYIs about legal matters is that civilly worded ones are probably OK, but keep in mind Raul's fourth law, consider using places like Wikipedia:Copyright problems rather than opening your mouth and leaping to conclusions, and be very careful not to say things that could be seen as attempts to intimidate. --bainer (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Would someone please try to draw a clearly visible line between "veiled threats" of litigation, and merely mentioning the possibility of litigation as something to be guarded against? In light of the Siegenthaler case, for example, the possibility of libel litigation when WP:BLP is violated continues to be very real. We need to look out for the best interests of Wikipedia. Editors need to be able to alert other in good faith regarding possible libel and copyright problems, without being accused of making legal threats.
For example, I've recently been chastised for having the following notice on my User page: "My entire purpose here is to protect Wikipedia from being sued for libel, and Wikipedia administrators understand that." Is that a veiled threat? I'd like to hear a consensus on this issue, please. Dino 16:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's not have everybody speak up all at once. Dino 18:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the easiest way to get a response is to suggest changing the policy. How about this:

Veiled legal threats and harassment

No Legal Threats is a bright line policy and refers to clear indications that the person making the statement intends to pursue or co-operate in a real-life claim against another person or corporation.

However, other statements about negative consequences to other users in real life are often uncivil, depending on the tone and context, and may lead to a block.

The following are examples which do not constitute legal threats, but are uncivil.

  • "Did you know that the police can track you down for putting up obscene photos?"
  • "For your own sake, stop posting this information or person X could sue you for defamation."
  • "Your employer will find it very intersting that you have created this article."

Comments referring to real-life consequences for specific editor(s) are intimidating to the recipient and may be seen as an incitement for other readers of the comment to take legal action. Such comments are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Remember that the blocking policy comprehends blocks for not only legal threats, but personal or professional threats if they are "in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user". To a degree what is decisive is the tone of what is said, more than the substance.

If you feel the need to give FYIs about legal matters, civilly worded ones are probably OK, but keep in mind Raul's fourth law, consider using places like Wikipedia:Copyright problems rather than opening your mouth and leaping to conclusions, and be very careful not to say things that could be seen as attempts to intimidate.

Please consider the above a rough proposal for further discussion, refinement, or outright rejection ;) Kla'quot 08:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the need to give FYIs about legal matters, civilly worded ones are probably OK ...
And in the specific instance I've cited? Dino 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The specific instance you cited is a legal threat, and according to WP:BLOCK the user can be blocked from Wikipedia by an administrator: veiled threats are, nevertheless, threats. anthonycfc [talk] 00:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is needed. We recently had at least two separate instances on ANI where people said things like "posting X about Y is libel unless it is well sourced" and were reported for violations of {{WP:NLT]]. In both cases, the broad consensus was that this was not a legal threat, and in the case that a block was made, the block was undoen by the blocking admin on hearing this consensus. In fact I would say that statements of that form are almost never legal threats unless the person makign them is the person allegedly defamed. Indeed of the example statemetns you give, i think only thee thrird is a probable threat. of course, civility should be maintained at all times, but WP:CIVIL alrady says that. DES (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veiled legal threats ???

Please excuse Smee. She is hunting me since a week with a variety of allegations (and not only me). But the question is: Am I allowed to warn editor that he might get in trouble with somebody not connected to me? Like an editor who is about to get in trouble for copyright violations, or having slander suits mustered up against him? Do I have this responsibility or should I watch him going down? COFS 01:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly what COFS (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu) should not do, and the user knows better. That is precisely why this policy was put into place: Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles. Smee 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
Guys! Cool it! First of all, remain civil and respect WP:NPA. Now, a legal threat is a legal threat - veiled or not; that is my reading of the policy. Furthermore, making legal threats is grounds for an indefinite block from Wikipedia, according to this exerpt:
“ ...Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding...
— WP:LEGAL
 ”
Hopefully this clears the matter up.
Kind regards,
anthony[cfc] 03:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup, you guys need to cool it, but I don't see anything from COFS that I could consider either a legal threat or incitement for someone else to take legal action. I think COFS has already made it clear that he or she has no intention to take any real-life action against another contributor, so there is no grounds for a block. Kla'quot 05:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Discussion in good faith about issues like the copyright status of materials added to Wikipedia is certainly permitted; what is not permitted is threats of legal action. There's none of the latter here, rather an attempt at the former, although it would certainly be preferable in the future not to say things to the effect of "you might get sued by someone for this". --bainer (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I would have said "we might get sued". As in we, the project. Because if any of the involved editors are not here working for the project then they should go start their own website to do their complaining about Wikipedia. Complain here only if your complaining is in the direction of improving the project and taking the Scientology series articles out of the hands of "anti-Scientology" hijackers and giving them back to the encyclopedia. I think that "we" would have been a better way to put it. --Justanother 14:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Same warning 4 times = ?

There is a related discussion going on about this issue on WP:ANI, so to anyone familiar with it I apologize for repeating myself but I'm curious to know if this could be a sort of veiled legal threat by repeated suggestion of general legal "trouble".

The suggestion that trouble could result from one's actions is either meant as a genuine warning or an attempt to intimidate the person being warned.

COFS could very well be right, but unless he/she mentions some specifics they could also just be raising the idea to discourage content he/she doesn't "like". The first mention of the warning and the first reiteration could be forgiven for not providing specifics. By the third or fourth they should have realized the warning was not being heeded with the information provided.

I think the line between helpful warning and ambiguous legal threat is crossed by repeating a threat of legal "harm" from unknown parties without an attempt to explain one's concerns. This is especially true when the editor issuing the warning is asked for but does not give said specifics. (Those being items like court cases, diffs from here, or anything showing people getting into trouble as described by COFS in his/her warning.) Anynobody 06:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There were no legal threats made there. COFS didn't threaten to take legal action. But the suggestion of trouble is not conducive to a loving environment and that sort of expression should be avoided. A better expression would be something along the lines of "I think that this content is a copyright violation because it's copied from X", or "I think that this doesn't meet the fair use policy because of X, Y and Z". --bainer (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Thebainer. Those are certainly veiled legal threats, and they should stop. Rewording a legal threat in the passive voice or the third person doesn't mean it's not a threat. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly the sort of thing people come out with when they think "hmm, I wonder how I can intimidate someone without getting hit by the no legal threats policy". Clear veiled threats. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to report legal threats?

I'm unable to find how to report legal threats. Help please? --Ronz 19:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You want WP:AN/I. Good luck. :) Kla'quot 06:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ronz 15:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] historical

Hi, has there been any sue to wikipedia by a user before?--Andersmusician VOTE 04:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New redirect: WP:SUE

I just created a new redirect for this at WP:SUE, which I thought would be helpful. I didn't overstep any boundaries, did I? I just thought I would mention it here in case I had done something wrong, and also to bring attention to the redirect in case anyone wanted to use it. --Dreaded Walrus t c 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description of legally risky behavior

I propose that the description of legally risky behavior, e.g. tort, is not deemed to be or overstretched to be equivalent to a threat. The description of risky behavior in this context should also be handled as a good faith attempt to talk about resolve opportunity in substitute to a threat. --Eurominuteman 12:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose we advocate software piracy since we can't make legal threats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.240.236.8 (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threats made on another's behalf

Should we clarify that conveying someone else's legal threat still has an intimidating effect and, as such, is still a legal threat according to this policy? This edit warns that another person is pursuing legal action. I wondered if it was specifically worded this way, so that the person could use "it is someone else who is pursuing legal action" as a loophole. The editor did try this in an unblock request (which was denied). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to be careful about wording that, though. Because the line between doing that to attack or establish control and doing it to inform isn't all that clear. -Amarkov moo! 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where to report violations?

Where should a violation of this policy be reported?--99.229.206.61 17:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:ANI. Hut 8.5 17:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question about "the legal threat"

Well, the law is a legal threat by itself too actually. It threatens you to not do things etc.

Yet I'm wondering and trying know this: Let's say; a child rapist posts his pictures while raping a 3 year old kid. Meanwhile let's say he writes an article about it; or writes a section such as "criticism of sexual behavior" and adds that; for some it is normal to rape children.

As a user; -let's say- my child was raped several months ago. If I complain to WP:AN about this person; and tell that this person should face criminal court and anyone who doesn't do anything against is as criminal as he is.

On this case; what I do is a legal threat or not?

Thank you.

Onur --Nerval 07:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No. You didn't threaten legal action. However, it'd be irrelevant to wikipedia, and probably would be blockable for other reasons. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not irrelevant; what if it happened? What are the other reasons to block ? Thanks. --Nerval 22:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone would remove his pictures as they do not assist in writing an encyclopedia.
Someone would remove his comment that "for some it is normal to rape children" as lacking a citation.
Someone would remove his article about his rape crimes as they are not encyclopedic. (not notable or verifiable)
Someone would contact a local law enforcement agency and ask them to investigate.
If you said "anyone who doesn't do anything against {user} is as criminal as he is." that might be a legal threat in my opinion. Certainly it is not a civil thing to say. Instead, I would advise contacting WP:AN and describing the situation in a calm, matter-of-fact tone. You could also help Wikipedia by performing the actions I've listed above. Martin 23:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


No one did that. While many makes "illegal threats" which you claim to allow exists, nothing can be made because of this stupid and non-sense rule. As an example, I can say "I will kill you" and according to Wikipedia policies I see, this is nothing. On the other hand, I can call you "motherfucker", and that's okay too. Since this is not a legal threat.
Yet It's okay. People who gives all the knowledge they have should get the fuck out from wikipedia. Then Mr. Jimmy willy milly popularity should cry showing his eyes "donate us".
"No legal threats" is the only "permanent" ban in wikipedia and it should be removed. --Nerval (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV: Uncivil

Why is making a legal threat uncivil? I disagree with this wording. It is possible that a person might have gone through dispute resolution, was unsatisfied and now needs to go through legal channels.

It also is much more civil to legally handle things versus retalitory hacking, or finding where someone lives and punching them in the face.

Please reword or give rationale for wording. Guroadrunner 04:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If they need to go through legal channels then they should go through legal channels; that is not disputed. This policy is addressed against threats of legal action. --bainer (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
A threat of any kind is, by definition, uncivil. While varying degrees of incivility exist, legal threats are by their very nature uncivil, if for nothing else but the intimidating and chilling effect that they are intended to have, ipso facto.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This policy is addressed against threats of legal action -- ahhh... lightbulb just went off. Now I get it better than I had understood. I might reword to give "threaten legal action" more prominence. Guroadrunner 08:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Brevity is more important than neutrality in policy space, so I removed the word "considered". I tried a different way to increase clarity. Martin 12:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off-wiki threats

Would this policy apply to a legal threat made outside of Wikipedia? Example: One Wikipedian sends another Wikipedian an email containing a legal threat, and concerning a Wikipedia matter. Just wondering. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • According to my understanding of this, doing that should also be covered by this policy, or at least "No personal attacks", would cover it. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Such policies are non-enforceable off-wiki. If the user has legal threats off wiki but are related to wikipedia, direct them to info-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org and have them email OTRS, or consult your own attorney. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consider this case.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive323#Concerns_over_legal_action_in_the_US_chess_community._.28User:Sam_Sloan_et._al..29

User Sam Sloan is suing other individuals (one of which is another Wikipedian) for libel, among other disputes, of which is primiary (not exclusively) off-wiki. An admin blocked Sloan for legal threats. Opinion is needed as the guideline is not designed to handle this situation. SYSS Mouse 20:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Take this into case...

If an user continues to upload a copyrighted image that cannot succeed the Fair Use Rationale, and evades his or her ban to if he or she becomes blocked. Is it nessesary to take legal action under witness or company? Reply on my talk page. Ellomate (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(Also replied on user's talk page.) I think it would be up to the copyright owner to take legal action against the uploader. Wikipedia would probably simply block the account(s) to prevent further infractions. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two questions

1. What if someone has a good reason to make legal threats? For example, real life harassing of another Wikipedian. If you block someone for legal threats when he has a good reason to make legal threats, you may make him angry and make him actually sue Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no money to fight in court.

My understanding: If he needs to sue, then he needs to sue and he's free to do so. I think the point is to leave Wikipedia out of it, and to stay away until the legal proceedings are complete (or dropped etc.). I imagine Wikipedia has its own channels for dealing with harassment (perhaps WP:AN/I). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

2. What if someone says something that others misunderstand as a legal threat? For example, A tells B that he wants to sue C. B tells C that A wants to sue him. Then B gets blocked for making a legal threat. Or D does something on Wikipedia that could get him in legal trouble, and E tells D that he could get into legal trouble. Then E gets blocked for making a legal threat.

--Kaypoh (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding: Again, if 'A' needs to sue, then 'A' needs to sue. As legal threats have a chilling effect, then 'B' is at fault for posting the threat on Wikipedia. 'A' can go about his legal business as he pleases, there's no need for 'B' to bring it up on Wikipedia. One purpose of this policy is to counter the chilling effect. 'E', I think, is kind of in a grey area. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
To both of you: you may want to read the case of User:Sam Sloan I posted above. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Withdrawal of legal threat"

I've added the small section on withdrawal, that was written for (and supported at) Village Pump [1]

I think it's important; in the spirit of the project we need to make clear (lest it be misunderstood or someone ask in future) that blocking is for reasons of preventing future disruption and issues, and not punitive, and that once the community agrees these are credibly no longer an issue (or that good faith should be extended) the previous status quo can be reinstated. I've also retitled the existing section to a more helpful title but not otherwise changed its text.

Hopefully this is pretty much communal understanding and consensus and agreeable. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I think the section does not read easily, but at the moment I don't see how I would rework it. I do think it needs rework. —Christian Campbell 21:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-17 Werner Erhard

[edit] DMCA take down notices not covered under NLT?

I just read this, and with no comments about Durova or the case, or whether she did or didn't send a takedown notice. In general: why would NLT not cover DMCA take down notices? If I found some of my writings were posted to Wikipedia in violation of my copyrights, and sent a proper takedown notice to Wikipedia, that is a legal threat. "I intend to sue if you don't take down my work, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a right I have as an American to take against an American entity." Issuing a takedown is a legal threat if done. Why would it be exempt here?

If you read this section of the OCILLA article, which details the DMCA takedown process, its clearly a pure legal threat. "Take down my content, or a lawsuit follows." • Lawrence Cohen 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

NLT states that "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat". If you are the owner of copyrighted material which has been inappropriately added to Wikipedia, a clear statement about whether it is licensed for such use is welcome and appropriate. You may contact the information team, contact the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent, or use the procedures at Wikipedia:Copyright problems." NotLawyer (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
That's different from a DMCA takedown notice. If I'm an author of a novel, and I find a page that has Chapter 10 of my book reprinted whole, I can post and say, "Please take this down, its copyrighted by me," but I'm not suing. If I instead send an actual DMCA takedown notice to WP's designated agent by e-mail (allowed), postal mail, or courier, thats a whole different can of worms that involves threatened and legally implied pending ligitation. Even threatening a DMCA takedown is not good as you're invoking a right to sue and use Federal law to protect your interests at the liability of another party (the WMF). • Lawrence Cohen 16:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"Dear Wikimedia Designated Agent - My name is Not Lawyer, and I live at 123 Anywhere Road, Springfield, IN. You have taken chapter 10 of my work "The Cockroach" and placed it on your website at "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_legal_threats/chapter10". It is my good-faith believe that your copying of my chapter is not legally licenced for you to copy there. As I am the owner of the copyright, I state under penalty of perjury that I have the right to act for myself. Sincerely, Not Lawyer." No threat to sue. NotLawyer (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
NotLawyer is correct. A notice of infringement and demand for take-down does not inherently include a legal threat⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree. Notifying WP of your copyright and asking them to take something down and ever quoting the relevant laws is not a legal threat. If a threat of legal action was included then we would need to prevent them from doing so on wiki. 1 != 2 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about "See also" link to "meatball:LegalThreat"

When I click the referenced link to meatball:LegalThreat, I get an HTTP 500 - Internal server error. I can get the Home Page, but not the link.

If this is neither a transient issue nor an issue specific to my own Internet access, then this link needs either to be corrected or deleted. Please advise if you see the same problem. Thanks. Art Smart (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This link now seems to be working. Thanks to whomever fixed it. Art Smart (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The picture

I am wondering whether we should use the picture of the court building. Its caption reads, "A court of law in Trenton, New Jersey — one of the many courts in which you may not threaten to sue another Wikipedian," which isn't true at all - anybody may sue anybody, whether they can talk about it on Wikipedia is another question. I know it's a question of wording but do the picture and caption really help? I really don't see much use (nor humor) in it. Having said that, I did like the previous picture of the lawyer(?) with the red circle and slash. My $0.02, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the image and its caption. Someone had just changed the caption but I still don't see how it is of any real use. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The image is a reference to an (in)famous former user who threatened to SUE people in a COURT OF LAW in TRENTON, NEW JERSEY. As in-jokes go it's a humourous one, but I don't think it has much use here, on a policy page whose target audience is largely going to be outsiders who can't appreciate in-jokes. --bainer (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, I think one has to resort to a threat of legal action if nothing else works to resolve one's complaint. I tend to see alot of the policies of Wikipedia as being legally questionable at best, and I'd be sure a court of my state would concur if a Wikipedia policy was contested here. Courts don't always mandate you exhaust internal remedies if you can show they either don't exist or they are patently ineffective as a remedy. That is legal precedent in state and federal courts. In many cases, I notice the Wikipedia internal affairs processes too often side with a complainant against a respondent party. I'd advise those users unfairly treated in their opinion by the arbitration committee or by any administrator to bypass internal remedies and go straight to taking judicial action against Wikipedia. I think a court of law and equity would give you a much more fair hearing than an internal hearing here, and you'd more likely succeed against this place. I'd bet my state's courts would hand down some harsh judgments against this site if it came up, especially at the appellate levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.172.131 (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "On wikipedia"

The page says in a couple places "Don't make legal threats on Wikipedia." It says this in a high-profile enough way that I think it's confusing. Such threats are most likely to be seen on Wikipedia, but if they are made off-wikipedia, such as in email or on an external website, or even simply through legal channels, the reasons for blocking still absolutely apply. Could we change that phrase to "Don't make legal threats concerning problems on Wikipedia", or something like that? Any ideas? Mangojuicetalk 02:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this wording is problematic, and I definitely dont like the idea that editors can email a legal threat to bypass the fundamental principle that productive editing should be enjoyable; we have mediation venues to deal with occasions when it isnt fun. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It is true that if someone is taking legal action, or threatening to take legal action against another Wikipedian, regardless of the venue, they need to stop using Wikipedia until it is resolved. This wording does need to be addressed. (1 == 2)Until 14:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no where that you can claim such, nor is there any ability for you to enforce such. If someone was to take legal action against Jimbo, for example, you cannot claim that he would not have the right to edit, and you could not then say that only one party in the legal action cannot edit. The rule stands to remove legal threats from Wikipedia, so Wikipedia itself is not used as evidence or part of a judiciary proceedings. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That is precisely the spirit of the policy. If someone tries to take legal action against one of our members, yes we do prevent them to edit. Nobody has the "right" to edit. I have made an edit in that direction.
While my change clarifies things it does not change the policy itself as it has always said "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels". We do deprive people of editing privileges(not "rights") when they make a legal threat on or off Wikipedia in Wikipedia related matters. (1 == 2)Until 14:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Except that you cannot prove that someone took legal action without it being on Wikipedia, thus, you cannot have any reason to even prevent someone from editing. Hence it needs to be "on Wikipedia". SwatJester has already answered to this question above. Why contradict him when he spoke quite clearly on what to do? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, Until, but the policy clearly deals with Wikipedia and not Wikipedians except as they are users on Wikipedia. Thus, your edit is improper. You lack a consensus to make such a dramatic change, and I suggest you go to village pump if you wish to form such. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In most cases, the only way that a user will be legitimately able to deliver any kind of legal notice to another user will be via email, typically via Special:Emailuser, either that or solicit alternative contact information via email. The prohibition is against public threats. --bainer (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
So what if in some circumstances we can't prove it? In others cases we will be able to prove it. The change I made that you reverted Ottava did not change the policy, it only clarified what it already says. It already says that if you make legal threats involving Wikipedia outside of Wikipedia that you must stop editing.
It was not a dramatic change. We don't need the village pump to clarify the wording of a policy to better reflect what it already says. If you have a better wording to deal with the issue I would like to see it, but you are really the only person objecting. (1 == 2)Until 15:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion that it was not a great change does not reflect a consensus of the community nor does it reflect English grammar rules. Wikipedia is not Wikipedian. "on Wikipedia" is quite specific to being on. Two other administrators have already stated in opinion, one above in an earlier entry and one directly above state that it deals exclusively with on Wikipedia. The changes you made contradicted that. And your interpretation does not stand with the wording. It says if "you must take legal action", which is dealing with Wikipedia, not Wikipedians, then they ask you to not edit, hence, the page which the copyright problem would exist. That is how the rule is read, and that is the spirit of the rule. You are attempting to expand the rule far greater than what Wikipedia has authority to do. That has been stated previously by others. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Even the photo caption contradicts your interpretation: "A court of law in Trenton, New Jersey. Whilst you may sue in a court of law here, do not threaten to do so on Wikipedia." Notice the repetition of the word "on". This rule only deals with public threats made on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, since Ottava has decided to make this a dispute, let me note that (1) Ottava is just coming off a block for having made a legal threat to another user over email, which I overturned after a somewhat begrudging retraction; he appears to be Wikilawyering of the issue, and (2) In fact, the wording of the policy was for a long time clear on this point until this wording was changed at the end of 2006 by Thebainer. Bainer -- I agree that we may not always be able to prove legal threats. However, a privately emailed threat, or a threat posted off-Wikipedia is no less damaging to free and open editing than one posted publicly. I do worry a little that a user may try to get another one banned for legal threats "sent privately in email" when no such threats were actually made, but I would rather assume we can work out which user is lying in those cases than potentially allow legal threats if they are made privately. (In fact, I take a private legal threat to be of greater concern: it is closer to what would happen if legal action actually begins. In that sense, those threats are a bit more credible.) Mangojuicetalk 18:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Since Mango lacked any evidence to back up the claim, I must interject with what happened. I told an admin that I reported their actions to Wikimedia. Said admin claimed that was a legal threat, and then banned me for such. Now, as SwatJester and others have stated before, that is an email, and emails are not admissible. However, you and others wanted to change a rule that was quite clear to make it permissible, even though said rule is clear when it states "on Wikipedia" and has always been about Wikipedia. The rule was not what you wanted and you wanted to change it without consensus. This is not "wikilawyering". This is an action without consensus, which is frowned upon, especially with such a rule as this. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, she interpreted it as a legal threat because you stated to her, in my understanding, that "an official legal complaint has been filed against you with Wikimedia.". --ZimZalaBim talk 02:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that is not a "legal threat" because it states Wikimedia, which cannot be deemed as one. Furthermore, it is polite, and cannot be considered as a threat. There cannot be a ban, because of what SwatJester stated above, and without proof that there was an actual legal proceeding happening, there cannot be a ban on that notice either. Hence, admin overstretching their authority and a violation on admin not being allowed to ban on an issue that they are concerned with. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. I was just trying to explain why she interpreted it that way, since you left out the fact you used the term "legal" in your note above. That's not the issue here, anyway.... --ZimZalaBim talk 02:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Legal does not equal legal threat, and its quite clear about that. And the quote is taken quite out of context. The fact that Wikimedia is mentioned shows that. And, excuse me, if its not the issue, why did you bring it up? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mangojuice on this. E-mailed threats might have even more potency, and should be equally discouraged. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
So do I. Hut 8.5 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well considering Ottava's recent experience with legal threat blocks, and the fact that everyone else thinks the text should be clarified in this manner, I think we have a consensus. I do agree that my alteration had some grammer issues, so I recommend someone else try. (1 == 2)Until 19:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
"Well considering Ottava's recent experience with legal threat blocks, and the fact that everyone else thinks the text should be clarified in this manner, I think we have a consensus. " Three people does not make a consensus, nor is the community approached in the manner. This is a major policy issue, and more than just myself have already mentioned that the policy should stand. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, this is not a change to the policy. It already had plenty of language that implied the reading we're all talking about. For instance, "If you must take legal action [...] we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved..." and "If you make legal threats, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." Neither of those paragraphs include a qualification that such threats must be on Wikipedia for them to be bad. A few places the phrase "on Wikipedia" is used, but there is nowhere an explicit exemption for legal threats made off-Wiki. Mangojuicetalk 01:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
SwatJester made it explicit above that the policy only deals with Wikipedia and not emails. Thus, this is a dramatic change to the policy. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, SwatJester doesn't get to decide this, and reading what he said it looked like he was referring to one situation, not all situations. Even if he was right at the time, consensus can change and it is clear now that consensus supports the new clarification. Even putting all that aside, this is how it has always been and we are only clarifying things. (1 == 2)Until 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but everyone gets to decide on this matter. A consensus is the people of the board. It has been determined by enough people that the issue of the word "on" is important. If you want to proceed this matter further, the Village Pump is the place. The refusal to address the issue there and instead rewrite the page without bringing up the question is detrimental to what Wikipedia stands for and the basis of a consensus. I suggest you go there if you believe that you have a consensus backing such interpretation and such change, seeing as how there are three people around that do not agree with your interpretation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've brought it up at Village Pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Discussion at WP:NLT regarding "on Wikipedia" --ZimZalaBim talk 02:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I gave it a shot. Mangojuicetalk 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Much better than my clunky attempt. (1 == 2)Until 22:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Being the person that Ottava threatened, I can confirm it was more than just his first email; he proceeded after being asked for clarification to tell me he was advising me of my legal rights, that I broke state laws and opened the Foundation to legal action and basically continued in many veins to make crude attempts to intimidate me. Later, when asked on his talk, he claimed he couldn't be stopped from editing because he didn't actually say anything on a Wikipedia page, virtually admitting that he had done so elsewhere -- he seems to gloss over the fact that he used the Email this user feature and was threatening over actions taken on Wikipedia.
I think it makes perfect sense to update the policy to reflect actual usage. This isn't to stop people from using Wikipedia to make threats, its to avoid the chilling effect that happens when contributors are threatened based on their actions here and to ensure that legal concerns are handled properly. Shell babelfish 03:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how your ban was overturned for it not being a threat, you are violating WP:AGF by suggesting that it was, indeed, a threat. Now, I suggest that you withdraw your above comment, because it was quite obvious that from the emails, you could not construe it as myself taking any action against you in a court of law. Furthermore, your ban was placed in violation of the bias rule, since you are involved, which is put in place because not even Admin are capable of justly ruling on a situation they are involved in. Case in point is proven by your insistence, without proof, that it was a "threat". Furthermore, you transfered "threat" into "taking legal action" to justify a ban, which is not permitted within the ruling either. The only "chilling" effect is from administrative action that was produced by yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would note that simply by the fact that we're discussing this topic means there will be a result that will be one of 2 things: 1) Legal threats via email are forbidden. 2) Legal threats via email are allowed. In the case of a policy such as this, there really is no sensible middle ground ("Legal threats via email are allowed if..."). As a threat via email has basically the same effect as one made on-wiki, the spirit of the policy should take precedence over the wording. If you make a legal threat to a Wikipedia contributor, you mat not edit until the threat is rescinded or the matter is resolved. Mr.Z-man 04:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Mr.Z-man. --ZimZalaBim talk 04:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
1) How do you prove that it was a legal threat? 2) What jurisdiction does Wikipedia have outside of Wikipedia? 3) Wikipedia contributor can contain many things outside of Wikipedia, thus, Wikipedia would not have power over that. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
1) Case by case, presumably. 2) What jurisdictional issue are you referring to? If I threaten someone with legal action, whether on or off WP, the only action we're talking about here is restricting my ability to edit WP itself. There is no attempt to sanction my off-WP actions. 3) I have no idea what you mean with this - please clarify. --ZimZalaBim talk 04:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but without legal authority to check email servers, you cannot prove that an email is correct or not, so your standard for evidence is non-existent. Hence, you have no ability to make sure a claim is accurate, nor do you have the ability to determine such. What you propose cannot happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Issues of verifying evidence might hinder some applications of the policy, but it does not render the policy invalid. And this might not always be the case: a user very well might admit to an off-wiki blog post, discussion forum contribution or e-mail message which contained a legal threat. --ZimZalaBim talk 04:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Really now? I just got an email from you saying that you are going to sue me. I can say that you made an anonymous account to send it by. Can you prove it? Disprove it? And a "user" might admit in a blog? Well, I just registered a blog with your name on it over at livejournal and posted all sorts of things about how you want to sue me. I guess that means you should be banned too, since your name is admitting that, right? I didn't do that, but I don't need to actually do that to show that your theory has extremely large gaps. The fact that people could do such a thing makes any of your points absolutely moot. "On Wikipedia" was put there for a very good reason. There is no jurisdiction for Wikipedia Admin to prove such things are true or not. The only jurisdiction you have are logs of edits on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Your thought experiments are convenient to prove your position, but they are not complete. If you read my meaning, I am suggesting that a WP user might admit on a WP page (which makes it verifiable to your liking) that s/he made a threat that occurred off-WP. For example, a user might say somethign like "yes, I did sent her that e-mail" or "yes, that is my blog post". Such an admission might suffice as verification. Regardless, you are arguing, in effect, that just because it might be hard to prove an act, we might as well not bother creating a policy that describes that act. That's not a logical stance. Further, if what you argue is true, and we'll never be able to verify an off-wiki threat, then there is no harm in having the policy, is there? --ZimZalaBim talk 05:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No thought experiment is complete, but that hasn't stopped it from being a time honored tradition. :) Now, if it goes on a Wikipedia page, then it clearly enters into "on Wikipedia", yes? Thus, the current rule already covers it. When its on Wikipedia, it can be confirmed, and the rule "on Wikipedia" applies. When its off Wikipedia and has no contact with Wikipedia, it cannot be confirmed. Hence my concern and the potential for abuse is astronomical. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that WP admins all realize that allegations of off-Wiki misconduct can be hard to verify. But not always. For instance, if someone sends email to me via Wikipedia's "email this user" feature and sends me a legal threat, it's not very hard for me to verify it, especially considering that I use a special email address for Wikipedia that never receives any other email. And other admins may have a harder time verifying it, but if they trust that I would not make a false allegation, based on my WP reputation, it's not a bad procedure. At least, it's good enough to block the user and not unblock them until they at least disavow that they are considering any legal action. Mangojuicetalk 17:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"...the potential for abuse is astronomical." It seems to work okay in past applications, as Mango describes. Confirmation becomes an important issue, but it's not a trump card to do whatever you want just so long as you use Special:Emailuser to do it. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitrary Break in the Above

I think we have enough agreement on the matter to call it settled for now, if a more significant objection to the clarification shows itself in the future we can reconsider. We really don't need to investigate people's motives when the consensus is so clear cut. (1 == 2)Until 05:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreement? There hasn't been any actual agreement. Consensus debate on policy requires days and sometimes weeks. What is the rush, especially if the policy read that way for over a year? Being in such a hurry would lead to undue suspicion over the nature of the change and would leave potential problems that would need to be addressed later. Slow down. Wikipedia isn't something that changes over night. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are the only one disputing this, we have enough agreement, there is no minimum amount of time to wait when there is such one sided agreement. There is a post at VP like you wanted, and surprise there is still agreement to do this. I am sorry, but one disgruntled person objecting in no ways prevents a consensus from forming. Everyone disagrees and saying it over and over will not change that. (1 == 2)Until 15:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you not deny that the effect of an emailed threat is the same, do you believe that people should be allowed to email threats? Mr.Z-man 05:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
And they could anonymously email. Thats not the point of this policy. The point is to make sure that Wikipedia is not in the middle of any legal dispute. The first part (the "threat") is for either Civility reasons or to make sure that what is said on Wikipedia is not used as evidence, or not required to be used as evidence. The second part (the action) is to make sure that edits are not made that would cause harm during the action (i.e. suing someone for libel then editing the page about them, etc) which would cause a conflict and potentially spill over to Wikipedia either legally or just in general disruption. Hence, "on Wikipedia". Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You are correct that (part of) the point is to make sure that Wikipedia is not in the middle of any legal dispute. What that means is, while a legal dispute exists, the complaining person should not be editing Wikipedia. For that principle it doesn't matter how the legal dispute comes about. Another point of the policy is to discourage legal threats so strongly that editors will not choose to use them to intimidate others they are in a dispute with on Wikipedia. Again, it is much more likely for such intimidation to take place on Wikipedia if it happens, but it is no less a bad thing off of Wikipedia. The only rationale of the policy that shouldn't apply off-Wiki is the point that legal threats are incivil. Yes, they are, and they are incivil even off of Wikipedia, but we can't expect everyone to always be civil off-site. Mangojuicetalk 12:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"is to discourage legal threats so strongly that editors will not choose to use them to intimidate others they are in a dispute with on Wikipedia." And the ban is preventative, not punative, and only done when the accusation is impolite and breaks WP:CIVIL. Now, there is no spelling of specific legal threats, but the spirit of the ruling deals with defamation and copyright issues. Those are the two which get people threatening action during arguments. Now, these items are not in regards to individuals, but what individuals say on Wikipedia. So, "on Wikipedia" would be appropriate. I cannot sue you because you are Mango (well, I could, but it would be frivolous). I would need a legitimate action of yours to sue over. Now, off-Wiki incivility is not a blockable or stopable offense. There are tons of ways to have anonymous emails or to fake such. Without having a way to check and recheck the IPs, then there is no direct proof, which would make it, at most, a guessing game, which is frightening to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing legal threats with legal action. "I'm going to sue you" or "You better get a lawyer" is a legal threat, it is a far cry from any actual legal action (which should not be done by email anyway) and in most cases is an empty threat used solely for intimidation, in which case it does not matter if the threat is made on-wiki or by email. The effect is the same. I honestly don't see why you would want to allow people to send legal threats by email. Mr.Z-man 15:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"There are tons of ways to have anonymous emails or to fake such. Without having a way to check and recheck the IPs, then there is no direct proof." There are ways to game every system - I have not yet seen convincing evidence or argumentation that specifically "allowing" off-Wiki threats would be a good idea. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The mini-summary at WP:Harassment#Threats does not seem to differentiate between on-Wiki and off-Wiki threats. WP:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment and WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks also consider Off-wiki behavior as relevant. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Z-man said it well. I do recognize that in some cases legal actions are unavoidable and may be started after a good-faith attempt to resolve things through Wikipedia's internal procedures. Thus, it is not strictly necessary to block a user, so long as they comply with the no-edit policy while the case is not fully resolved. But at worse, such a block is unneeded, not improper, as the user would be prohibited from editing in any case. And let me add that email sent via Wikipedia's "email this user" feature is, just like ordinary WP posts, an improper channel for those involved in a legal dispute. So if the "on Wikipedia" wording is desirable anywhere, it should at least be changed to "through Wikipedia" or something like it. Mangojuicetalk 17:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the other policy that RedPenofDoom cites is the same here - you cannot legally verify it is the same user. As I stated above, as long as you can use someone's user name to register an email address or a blog cite without needing permission to use that, you can easily fake such problems. Thus, Wikipedia Administrators ruling on such have no actual proof of the various incidents, and to have any rule that makes it seem as otherwise is patently absurd. Its not a matter of should or should not, its a matter of can and can not. Wikipedia Admin are incapable of verifying who sent what without having the ability to check IP addresses and have them match up. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

you cannot legally verify it is the same user. Two replies: (a) this isn't a court of law, so we don't need to be able to "legally verify". (b) challenges in verifying actions is not a reason to avoid having a policy addressing said action (it is hard to track down and identify terrorists, but it is still illegal, no?) --ZimZalaBim talk 17:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, are you saying that WP should specifically "allow" off-Wiki legal threats? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Allow? No, I'm saying they lack the authority to disallow, or to create a policy which would require knowledge that they cannot have.Ottava Rima (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I still see only 2 positions: either 1) the rules allow off wiki legal threats or 2) the rules dont allow off-wiki legal threats. (the 'third' position: the rules don't address off-wiki legal threats is equivilant to 1)) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Response to ZimZalaBim - a) even if this is not a court of law, the only way for Wikipedia to attain the IP address of the blog or email is through either a warrant, which they cannot get, or through hacking. I do not think that Wikipedia would allow Administrators to hack into websites to track down IP addresses. b) Verification is utmost important and fraud is easily attained in this matter. By following the wording of the above, you would allow people to make plenty of frivolous accusations or those that could be patently false. Wikipedia is here as an encyclopedia, and instead, you would open up the door for a new way of retaliation. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just finished reading through this thread. First, I have a technical question. If one WP user send an e-mail to another e-mail user via Special:Emailuser, does the content of this e-mail get recorded in some log on the WP server? If yes, who has access to such information?

Regarding the discussion above: I am sympathetic to some of the concerns raised by Ottava Rima regarding verifying that a legal threat has occurred, but, by and large, I am with Mangojuice, (1 == 2), and ZimZalaBim on the above discussion. We do not want WP users making legal threats against Wikipedia or against other WP users on WP-related matters, whether these threats occurr on or off Wikipedia. Thus it is appropriate for the policy to state this. Enforcement is a different matter. Clearly, there is no way to verify, in any reasonable way, if a legal threat has occurred in a private e-mail message sent through non-Wikipedia channels. On the other hand, there may be situations where the existence of such legal threat made off-Wikipedia can be reasonably verified, e.g. if some-one makes such a legal threat in some public forum, but not on Wikipedia. So maybe we could add the word "verifiable" to the sentence regarding blocking, to have it read "If you make verifiable legal threats or take legal action over a dispute involving Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels". Still, coming back to my original point, I very much favor the language "Do not make legal threats against Wikipedia or members of the Wikipedia community" over, say, "Do not make threats or claims of legal action on Wikipedia". There are other WP policies and guidelines that, even if not practically enforcible, reflect the consensus of the WP community members regarding desirable behavior and practices. This applies for example, to WP:AB which strongly discourages writing auto-biographical WP articles. Clearly, there is no practical way to enforce this guideline, but it does, nevertheless, reflect the sense of the WP community and should certainly be kept. I think the same reasoning applies here. I do have one other minor quipe with the sentence "Do not make legal threats against Wikipedia or members of the Wikipedia community". I would prefer to see something like "on Wikipedia-relater matters" added at the end of this sentence, for clarification. For all we know, one member of a Wikipedia community may be engaged in a legal action against another member of the Wikipedia community on a matter having nothing to do with Wikipedia (e.g. divorce or a custody case). I don't think it is appropriate for a WP policy to discourage these kinds of legal actions. While reading the full text of the policy makes it clear that this is not what is meant here, a literal reading of "Do not make legal threats against Wikipedia or members of the Wikipedia community" could be construed to apply to such non-Wikipedia related disputes as well. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"where the existence of such legal threat made off-Wikipedia can be reasonably verified, e.g. if some-one makes such a legal threat in some public forum" Except that anyone can register any name, and it would not account for anonymous accounts, which would do nothing to prevent such things from happening. Remember, this rule is preventative, not punative. Thus, it would negate the spirit of the rule by following such. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that there is no way to verify the original of an e-mail from Wikipedia's internal e-mail system, I don't think it is logged and it can be spoofed. This goes well beyond e-mail though, making legal threats towards Wikipedia on your blog, radio show, or the street corner would prevent you from editing until the matter was resolved. (1 == 2)Until 19:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another section break

Overly specific wording like 'If you make verifiable legal threats' could encourage rules-gaming. It's almost like saying 'if you'd like to attempt to bully and intimidate other editors, just make sure you do it in a way that makes it difficult to prove.' Legal threats, like any user conduct issue, need to be treated on a case-by-case basis; if it's doubtful that a user made a legal threat, obviously they shouldn't be blocked for one. But given that all a user needs to do to be unblocked is retract the threat, there's no real danger in a user being blocked over false accusations: all they need to do is say they didn't make the threat and don't intend to take any such action. 'You can't prove I said that' isn't a valid retraction, but 'I never said that and I'm not planning on suing you' is. I support the recent moves to tighten the language and close a perceived loophole in the policy. -- Vary | Talk 19:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Vary, by your suggestion, anyone who can be blocked need only say "I retract my statement", which makes the whole blocking or banning over the matter completely pointless. The matter is not about the legal threats themselves, but the violation of WP:CIVIL and using Wikipedia's servers as a means to attack another individual. By simply retracting, an individual is allowed to harm another and simply apologize to escape punishment. Thus, it violates the spirit of the rule as "preventative" and not "punitive". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
So you're suggesting that retraction is insufficient? And how would you apply it to the case of the legal threat you made against Shell (her description of which is just above on this page), for which you were temporarily banned? Pilch62 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not belive this is a productive comment. It seems that Ottava Rima's position is that the comments made to Shel were not a threat of legal action, even if the comments contained the word 'legal'. Rehashing that debate is not likely to help produce a better Wikipedia - I would urge the retraction of the comment by Pilch62 and/or that Ottava ignore it. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to explain why you don't think this is "productive", in the midst of all the other who-struck-john that has surrounded this issue? I think it's very clear that Ottava Rima made at least one legal threat, possibly more, and was blocked for making it, whatever his "position" is, and he retracted that legal threat in order to have the block removed. I have no intention of retracting my comment, and would ask why Ottava Rima, whose behavior raised this whole issue, can't simply answer the question, since we are all interested in a better Wikipedia and he is suggesting that a better Wikipedia doesn't result from permitting, indeed encouraging, retractions of legal threats. I would also ask The Red Pen of Doom what his opinion of Ottava Rima's comment is, as well. Pilch62 (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I stated my reasoning for asking for that issue not to be resumed in this forum: Rehashing that debate is not likely to help produce a better WikipediaTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"I think it's very clear that Ottava Rima made at least one legal threat, possibly more, and was blocked for making it," Excuse you, Pilch, but there is no evidence to prove that I ever made a legal threat, so your claiming of such can be construed as a violation of WP:CIVIL. If you do not intend to do such, I suggest that you strike out your comment.
Retracting is not enough Ottava, the retraction needs to be believed. This has not failed us in the past. For example if someone made a legal threat and got blocked, then retracted it to get unblocked, it is unlikely if they made another legal threat that another retraction would be accepted. (1 == 2)Until 20:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. It's not my 'suggestion', Ottava, it's part of the policy. Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Withdrawal_of_legal_threat. -- Vary | Talk 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
And as such you can "admin shop" by finding an admin who believes you, or there can be admin who would never believe by bias. Wheel Wars happen for a reason, and the reason are potential bias in interpretations that result from allowing something to be deemed subjectively instead of objectively. We do not know the minds and hearts of the individual typing. A persuasive person could be a complete liar, and an honest man could have the whit of a mule. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that using wording like verifiable is like saying "It is only against the rules if you get caught". We have rules, we don't explicitly say we need to be sure you really broke them before we act, it is just something we do anyways. (1 == 2)Until 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That is true and I personally am basically fine with the current text. But I do feel that there is a possible legitimate concern here that the fact that a legal threat has occurred has to be confirmed in some kind of a reasonably substantive way before a user is punished. E.g. a mere allegation that a legal threat was made by e-mail should not be enough even if an alleged copy of such an e-mail is provided. Hopefully the admins that may have to deal with such situations will understand this anyway, but who knows... Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Case-by-case consensus judgement will likely guide whether off-wiki threats can be reasonably verified. It is just incorrect to assume, as Ottava holds, that any off-wiki threat is unverifiable, and therefor the policy is moot. A non-anonymous editor could make a threat in the press (verifiable), a user could confirm on her user page that she made a particular off-wiki threat (verifiable), etc. --ZimZalaBim talk 20:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Fake legal threats are not that big a concern; if someone is blocked for one, they will surely and immediately say that the message wasn't really from them but was faked. And it will take little time after that to clear things up: after all, if X doesn't intend to seek legal action against Y, it can't be that big a deal for them to say that they don't intend to.. and then whether or not the threat really happened, an unblock would be reasonable. Mangojuicetalk 21:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"Fake legal threats are not that big a concern;" To you. But not to me. Some people do not feel threatened by criminals. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a police force to protect everyone. The same goes for potential policy breaches. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would take a fake legal threat very seriously. What I mean is that it's a situation that could be easily detected and corrected. But in any case, this is way beyond the wording change I wanted to see happen here which is clearly supported strongly by the community. Mangojuicetalk 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"What I mean is that it's a situation that could be easily detected and corrected." I know there is a powerful rule that says "Assume Good Faith", but I don't yet believe there is a rule that says "Optimism is required". I think people are flawed and that legitimate concerns can be overlooked while illegitimate concerns are capable of moving forth and damaging people and their reputation. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay okay, this needs its own separate section, honestly: "Retracting is not enough Ottava, the retraction needs to be believed."

Wow. I am seriously stunned that someone would say such a thing. Policies are not arbitrary. You have a letter and a procedure. You fulfill the procedure, you are forced to release. This is preventative, not punative, and you have no ability to judge what goes through the mind of another, especially over the internet. I am greatly disheartened by the fact that the above is honestly held by members of this community. That is a philosophy that will truly stifle any kind of speech around here if its held true. Not only that, it allows for a potential of a Wheel War over the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We have always kept our policies open to the discretion of the community. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we are not held to the letter of procedure, and the rules do not force us to do anything. And we do judge the honesty of people by their history. It has worked for us very well so far. (1 == 2)Until 21:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Until, did you use IAR in order to justify putting forth rules that would result in blocking. I must say, that seems rather ironic, seeing as how IAR would push (in spirit), for people ignoring such rules that would result in a block, instead of ignoring procedure that would result in an unblock. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, it appears to me that you are attempting to apply only the name 'ignore all the rules' and not the actual content and spirit of WP:IAR. Let me quote for you If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. How exactly would IAR support your statement above? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that you are misreading my statement. Until has suggested an interpretation of IAR that would result in a banning of individuals. WP:ASG would force WP:IAR to accept the philosophy that yes, everyone is capable of contributing to the encyclopedia, thus, IAR should not be used to potentially result in a block, but only as a justification in unblocking people. IAR is a rule to defend the common person against the letter of the rule becoming the cause of a block, and it would be against the spirit of the rule to have a person blocked beyond the letter of a rule. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that it was pretty clear that Until 1=2 was suggesting that if an obvious problem arose from (or would arise from) a block issued because of an explicit extention of No Legal Threats to off-wiki threats, IAR would allow that issue to be addressed. And I still dont understand how you are attempting to argue that Until is applying IAR in some way that it would "stifle free speech". If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
IAR does not exist to "defend the common person." It exists to avoid bureaucracy in maintaining an encyclopedia. In your attempt to "defend" the person making the threat, you seem to ignore the person or people being threatened and suggest that blocking a person can never be good. Should I go unblock Willy on Wheels? He might be able to contribute constructively. Since IAR can apply everywhere (with the exception of foundation principles and actual laws), saying it can never possibly lead to a block makes no sense. If someone threatens a contributor, they are not helping the project and should be removed from it, at least until they stop doing so. Mr.Z-man 01:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but IAR cannot and can never be interpreted to expand any rule or ruling beyond what is stated. I feel that you two do a disservice to the background and origin of the original essay on the matter and why it was originally put in place. It is there to justify people not banning/blocking individuals on every potential rule break, and cannot be contrued in any way to justify the banning/blocking of an individual who has not broken a rule according to the policy put forth already. If you disagree, please go over there and have the rule changed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe I HAVE seriously misunderstood your position.
No one is arguing that IAR is the justification behind the explict extention of NLT to include off-wiki threats. The position is: that IAR is a safeguard that reasonably addresses your stated concern that someone might be unjustly blocked because of off wiki legal threats.
The justification behind the explict extention of NLT to include off-wiki threats is that off wiki legal threats are just as damaging to wikipedia as on wiki legal threats. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Take you for your clarification on the matter. Now, for the secondary matter - yes, they may be "just as damaging" (I'll assume such, because there are extreme situations on both case, but they don't matter here), but such a rule still cannot prevent it, and since the rules are preventative, isn't it strange to have a rule that is ultimately futile in the end? We have a "don't vandalism rule", but it would be silly to have a rule devoted to using a random IP address to vandalize. There are things rules can cover and things that rules can never cover. How do you address that? I don't really know. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocking vandals doesnt prevent the damage they have done nor does blocking someone who has made an on -wiki legal threat prevent them from having made that threat. But just like blocking a vandal or someone who has made an on-wiki legal threat, blocking someone who has made an off-wiki legal threat prevents further damage by that person. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't know. They could still email and cause problems, and would probably have a greater incentive to harass people off Wikipedia. Thats the thing about blocking people for doing something off Wikipedia, its still off Wikipedia and you can't shut down their email or the rest. It seems like a lose-lose situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
So.... because we can't guarantee complete and utter compliance with a block related to off-wiki legal threats, we shouldnt have any guidelines about off wiki legal threats?? We cant guarantee complete compliance with any of the guidelines - so lets drop them all. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia can make as many rules as it really wants, but the more rules it makes that it can't enforce, the more it undermines the rest of them. You rule on what you can reasonable expect a result from. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, and in general we get very good results from blocking contributors who disrupt the project. Sure, blocks can be evaded (although we're usually pretty good at catching that, too), but that doesn't mean we should require a constructive contributor to choose between leaving the project and continuing to work alongside someone who's using threats and intimidation to gain the upper hand in a dispute. The Red Pen's right here; this is an important policy that's vital to the project, and there is no point in continuing to insist that we should drop it because we can't enforce it perfectly. Restraining orders don't physically prevent a stalker from finding and attacking their victim, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful. -- Vary | Talk 14:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Vary, your comment is patently absurd. Its a simple fact that there is tons of vandalism, and that will never stop regardless of how great you claim blocks are. There are plenty of ways for people to go about committing such violations that you cannot prevent. What you are doing by making excessive rules is forcing people into said situations instead of encouraging them to be contributors to the project. Block are preventative, not punative, which means that Wikipedia believes everyone can contribute. Instead of asking someone to stop a behavior, you are encouraging more rules which only push this into an absurd police state, which Wikipedia clearly lacks the power to enforce. You would make a mockery of the system.Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Rules we can't enforce are one thing, but we certainly can block an account of an editor who has made a legal threat off-wiki. I have more agreement with your concern of "how do we know for sure the off-wiki legal threat was made by the wiki editor that we want to block". (and I think that has been adequately addressed above.) But the current line of argument is carrying zero weight. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocks do not prevent people from making new names. Blocks do not prevent them from using IPs. You can block all you want, but it wont fix the problem. Instead, you are giving an option for abuse against decent individuals, while those who would ignore the rules are not affected. That is detrimental to the encyclopedia and goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
So you are still arguing that without the ability to guarantee perfect enforcement, there should be no guidelines? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
RedPen, are you now saying that there is no longer a distinction between guidelines and policy? There is a large difference between the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't try to distract from the subject by quibbling over semantics, Ottava. It isn't productive. As for your comment about my 'making a mockery of the system', despite your claims to the contrary, you are the one who is advocating changes the existing policy, both here and in the thread below, and your arguments are finding no support from other contributors in either thread. If you really feel that the changes you're suggesting are needed, I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the village pump and ask for further input, because it's clear that you're not going to achieve any consensus for your interpretations here. Otherwise, it may be time for you to drop the stick and step away from the horse carcass. - Vary | Talk 17:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
??????? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Distract? Just because you have not produced anything verifiable to reinforce your view, nor have you demonstrated with any kind of evidence, does not mean that I am distracting. I would remind you know of WP:CIVIL, since your accusation of the above, without any verifiable evidence to produce that you are not the distractee, seems that you would be in violation of such with the preceding claim. The "change" I am suggesting isn't a change. Its a simple fact of the rule. However, by rewriting the above, it has taken away from the truth of what the policy originally stated. Now, by your attempt to claim "stick" and by emphasizing the village pump, you have down a disservice to this whole discussion and the fact that it is on village pump. This was evident if you would have read the whole conversation. Instead, you seem to be pushing your view without any evidence of the such. I believe that would not be in the spirit of Wikipedia, and if you did not mean to come off in such an outrageous manner as you have, you can strike your above comments, because they are quite inappropriate. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The proceeding comment is verified by "The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored." found on Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. As it states, the whole rule should be ignored in such a case. Thus, if the NLT rule does not allow certain things to happen, then IAR would justify ignoring the whole rule, not expanding admin powers in this case. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Dis-indent to respond to "??????? TheRedPenOfDoom" You said guidelines. Guidelines tell people whats appropriate, but are not enforcable. If a policy is not enforcable, then it is effectively a guideline. Thus, it should become a guideline. Its that simple. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have moved WAAAAAAYYYYYYYY beyond the question of: should off-wiki legal threats be explicitly included as blockable offences. And still you have not provided evidence, examples, policies, procedures, guidelines or logic that convinces me that the blockable legal threats ought to be limited to those committed on-wiki.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, RedPen, but verifiability would be needed to change the guideline. It clearly said "on Wikipedia". Thus, based on standard English grammar, it means on. Therefore, the burden of evidence is on you. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Burden of evidence is on me to what? This discussion has provided numerous and sound reasons why explicitly prohibiting off-wiki legal threats is both logical and in agreement with other WP guidelines/policies/intent. You have as of yet failed to produce any evidence of a concensus of the community or logical reasons why policy should be limited to on-wiki legal threats. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Here are the facts derived from this page. 1)There was a change of wording. 2) The original wording stated "on". 3) The definition of on does not include "off". 4) There is no verifiable evidence to contradict the dictionary on it. Thus, you are wrong. Sorry, but you are wrong. And consensus? There haven't been enough people issuing opinion on it to make a rule change or reinforce your view. Thus, there is no consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
When you have a real point, I may return to this discussion. But you continue to make baseless and pointless and off topic comments that are no longer worth consideration. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you need to read WP:CIVIL. Your comments are uncalled for, and my points deal exactly with what you are talking about. Off topic? No. Instead of having the decency to concede a point, you make false accusations in a condescending matter. If you want to continue as such, there are many discussion boards that tolerate such treatment of others. However, this is an encyclopedia and such attitudes do not contribute to the bettering of such. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another section break

Although I have a few lingering concerns, I am fine with leaving explicit mention of a legal threat being confirmed/verified out of the policy and to the good common sense of the admins involved. What about adding a clarification that the legal threats in question are on Wikipedia-related matters, e.g. something like: "Do not make legal threats against Wikipedia or against members of the Wikipedia community over disputes related to Wikipedia". As I said, if two wikipedians are getting divorced in court or have a court custody battle regarding their children, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and these kinds of legal actions should certainly not be the subject of this policy. Nsk92 (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be clear that the legal issues need to involve Wikipedia in some manner, if it does not already. (1 == 2)Until 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"Do not make legal threats over Wikipedia-related disputes"? I think that covers both the 'but it wasn't on Wikipedia' loophole and the 'unrelated legal action' issue. I'm not thrilled with 'Wikipedia-related disputes', though; it's a little awkward, but I can't seem to come up with a better way to say it succinctly. -- Vary | Talk 05:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If we have to sum it up in a sentence, I prefer the way it is; later text can clarify that we mean to talk about disputes relating to Wikipedia. Although, if user X and user Y are in a law suit, I do think they should still not use Wikipedia as an improper channel in their legal dispute. Mangojuicetalk 14:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Mango, would you agree that both would have the right to edit the Encyclopedia in areas that would not lead to conflict? I think WP:CIVIL would cover any such issues that may result from personal issues such as that. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If the conflict doesn't relate to Wikipedia issues, I would have no problem if the two stay clear of each other. Mangojuicetalk 11:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Mango, if only people who have conflicts with another user would just stay away from that other user on Wikipedia - However, I doubt such a thing will never happen. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a fair point, Mangojuice. And it's not as though that line needs to be a second nutshell. Obviously we can't anticipate every possible situation where this rule might come into play; any hypothetical non-wiki-related legal disputes between community members are going to have to be taken on a case by case basis.
I do think that if anything, though, we should be moving away from loading up that one sentance with qualifiers. "Do not make legal threats" with no 'on's or 'against's leaves very little room for misinterpretation: It doesn't imply that the threats need to be on Wikipedia, or that any threats against fellow Wikipedians, even if they're not wiki-related, will (or will not) get you blocked. Anyone who reads that line to mean that Wikipedia is trying to govern whether or not he can sue his neighbor for not cleaning up after his dog has some very strange ideas about the community indeed.
And really, I don't think we should be bending over backwards to avoid future wikilawyering. The previous version was perfectly clear, but as soon as we changed it to avoid one creative interpretation, it opened up more loopholes, as Nsk92 pointed out. The devil can cite scripture for his purpose, and a sufficiently motivated wikilawyer will always find some turn of phase to try to exploit. You shouldn't need to be a contractual law specialist to write a wikipedia policy: thanks to policies like IAR, there's no such thing as getting off on a technicality, and we're not obligated to, for example, unblock an editor who claims he broke the spirit of the policy because he was confused by the letter, but refuses to retract the threat that got him blocked. The spirit of the policy is always what's important here, and the borderline legalese that we've been moving towards almost implies that wikilawyereing is a valid way to resolve a dispute. Again, it's like a challenge to find a loophole, if not here, than somewhere else. -- Vary | Talk 05:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Vary - NLT is some mentioned at the beginning, but legal threats are clear when it states that polite warnings are not legal threats, so the ruling and wording at the top would have almost nothing to do with pursuing a legal case. How shall we address that in the wording at the top too? Or shall there be a stronger definition between these two points in order to ensure that there wont be confusion of them in the future? Since one does not necessitate the other. And Theologically, sure, anyone can quote scripture, but the devil could never understand the intent behind the wording and would be obviously misusing it to anyone with knowledge. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're not making much sense to me here. What wording exactly to you feel needs to be changed, and how? Do you mean the end of the nutshell statement, which clarifies the difference between a legal threat and the report of a legal problem? Because, again, I see no potential for honest confusion there. See what a legal threat isn't. I'll say it again: we don't need to to go out of our way to head off the wikilawyers. Wikilawyering doesn't work; we don't allow it to. Nobody is going to get away with making a legal threat and claiming protection under the 'polite warnings' clause. A genuine legal problem, ie BLP violation or copyright infringement, can and should be reported and will not result in a block.
And, theologically, that was kind of my point, although you don't have the interpretation quite right. The quote I used doesn't mean that he wouldn't understand the passages he's quoting: he'd understand them perfectly, but would be intentionally misusing them (as in Matthew 4), just like the term 'wikilawyering' implies an intentional misreading of a policy to suit the editor's agenda. But yes, anyone familiar with the spirit of the policy being abused will recognize a wikilawyer's argument as invalid, just as anyone familiar with Psalm 91 knows better than to go flinging themselves off cliffs. -- Vary | Talk 15:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
a) The wording I was refering to - "Do not make legal threats against Wikipedia or members of the Wikipedia community over Wikipedia disputes." b) The confusion would be between the rule dealing with Legal Threats and the rule dealing with Legal Action. I hope that clarifies. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't, actually. What do you feel needs to be changed? As I said above, this is not the nutshell statement. We do not need to pack the entire policy into that one sentence, and I think we've already gone too far in that direction. Someone who wishes to understand the policy needs to read the whole thing, not just one bolded sentence. -- Vary | Talk 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Vary, what I think you are failing to understand that in the above I am pointing out that there are actually two policies operating that are joined together based on a common theme. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No, there aren't - the policy is about legal threats, and it makes a point of clarifying that certain actions which relate to legal matters are not, on their own, considered legal threats, to avoid discouraging members of the community from pointing out certain types of problems for fear of being blocked under the policy. But either way, why is that relevant? What do you feel needs to be changed, and why? -- Vary | Talk 22:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Vary, but you are quite mistaken. There are two policies. The first is about threatening people about legal action, which is an extension of WP:CIVIL. The second is about actual legal cases that would involve Wikipedia or an editor on Wikipedia as pertaining to them as an editor of Wikipedia. That is extremely clear on the policy page, but its introductory section does not distinguish the two. I have said this multiple times. If you cannot understand it a third time, I can only redirect you to what has been stated above. Its a very simple matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's an interesting interpretation. I disagree. There are two primary types of cases that could be covered by the policy - empty legal threats made as an attempt to bully other contributors, and actual legal action. That doesn't make it two different policies. Whether we're dealing with case A or case B the result is the same - blocking until the threats are retracted or any legal proceedings have been completed. In other words, when a threat is made, for the purposes of the policy it doesn't matter whether the person making it intends to follow through or is just trying to intimidate another editor, so treating the two cases separately doesn't make any sense. What do you want us to say? "Don't make legal threats, even if you don't intend to follow through on them?" Not needed - a threat is a threat, whatever the intent.
Does anyone else agree that NLT is not one policy, but two? -- Vary | Talk 02:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"That doesn't make it two different policies." Legal threats does not imply that there will be a court case, and court cases can result from no legal threats. Thus, the two are, indeed, mutually exclusive, although they don't have to be. Thus, they are two different policies. NLT is more of WP:CIVIL whereas the stopping of editing is to prevent conflict of interests. In spirit and in form, they are separate. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Still disagree, for the reasons which I've already stated, but we'll see if anyone else agrees that legal threats and legal action are mutually exclusive. -- Vary | Talk 14:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you think or what you feel. What matters is verifiability, and I have already demonstrated that you can have the two separate. Therefore, you need to prove that the two can never be separated or must concede. The fact that you failed to concede this obvious point before is quite bewildering. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone earlier said - What that means is, while a legal dispute exists, the complaining person should not be editing Wikipedia. - NEITHER PARTY should be editing wikipedia, based on the actual reasoning provided on this page. Wikipedia is not a battleground; we are not in the business of "taking sides". —Random832 (contribs) 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing wikipedia is a privilige, not a right, and community members who feel they can take legal action over on-wiki disputes a) are probably fooling themselves and b) are given a choice between pursuing said legal action and continuing to contribute to the project. -- Vary | Talk 15:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I firmly believe that when we're talking about a legal dispute over something related to Wikipedia, particularly an inappropriate escalation of an on-Wiki dispute (which is the normal case here), it is only the complaining user that should be disallowed from editing. This is because (1) it is only the complaining user whose actions can be taken as an attempt to intimidate Wikipedians or inhibit free editing, (2) if either one of the parties is not editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia will not be a communication channel between them, so it is not necessary for both to stop, (3) the complaining user is free to drop their complaint and threat of action at any time, while the other user is not, and (4) I fundamentally do not support restricting someone's editing priveleges over something that could happen to anyone and which we have no control over. That said, if the complaint has merit, its being made in legal channels does not mean that the complaint should be ignored here on Wikipedia -- so anyone actually doing something improper like harassment or libel can and should be stopped. If the dispute is not a Wikipedia dispute, then we should treat both parties equally, but I don't think we need to take any drastic measures unless there has been a clear problem. Mangojuicetalk 17:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
just to clarify - by 'complaining' I believe that you are referring to the party who has (or has threatened to) initiate legal action. And not the party who has recieved the threat of legal action and may be reporting it to the WP community.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Mangojuicetalk 17:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
"I firmly believe that when we're talking about a legal dispute over something related to Wikipedia, particularly an inappropriate escalation of an on-Wiki dispute (which is the normal case here), it is only the complaining user that should be disallowed from editing." The problem with this is the assumption that an initiator in a legal dispute is potentially going to abuse Wikipedia to spread conflict there and that the one being targeted is incapable of such. That is a severe denial of human nature and of reality. It is also a denial of WP:AGF to have such a double standard. Also, (2) is absurd, since people attack those who do not reply. Being unable to defend yourself does not protect you from being attacked by another. The ostrich effect does not work, and would not make sound policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
At which point the editor who did not initiate the legal threat also gets blocked for disruptive behavior. End of on wiki drahma. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Not according to Mango's statement if taken without other considerations. Hence, the statement above. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Where in the world are you reading-in some interpretation that once User:A makes a legal threat against User:B, that User:B gains immunity to cause disruptive behavior? It's not there. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
RedPen, please strike your comment. Why? Because my response was in line of the argument from Random832 , which you have failed to acknowledge in your words, which would demonstrate a source of your confusion on what is actually being discussed. If you continue to post in such a manner as you did in your previous comment, I shall not respond, since you have demonstrated that you did not know the source of the line of argument, and any response, as has been demonstrated in your latest reply, is absolutely futile. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I will admit that your position continues to baffle me. Perhaps you should attempt to make your points more clearly. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If my comments "baffle" you, please do not respond. You have admitted that you don't understand my words, thus, your response could only be from a potential WP:OWN issue, which, I recommend, you step away for a bit. My comment was a response to the above person, and if you didn't understand and refuse to say anything but that you don't understand, then you are not contributing to this page as a talk page, thus, your comments serve no actual purpose to the discussion. I suggest that you will read through the corresponding page linked and then remove yourself until you wish to contribute directly to what is said, instead of restating what you just did. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow - What exactly is the connection in your mind between me asking you to be more clear and your 'subtle' implication that I am in violation of WP:OWN? You have once again baffled me. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enough

Stop it. Everyone. Ottava, consensus is very clearly against you on this matter and this discussion has long since ceased to be productive. Editors both here and at the village pump have found that the spirit of the policy is that making legal threats over email is a blockable offense and should be treated just as severely as on-wiki threats. If you wish to pursue this or any of your other proposed changes to the policy any further you are going to have to go through dispute resolution. Again, I'd suggest beginning by going back to the village pump (emphasis added lest I again be accused of not familiarizing myself with the discussion) and placing a polite and neutrally worded request for further input there, but there are of course other options. See WP:DISPUTE if you're not sure how to proceed. But in the absence of any new blood in the conversation, I think we all need to consider this matter closed. -- Vary | Talk 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Vary, you cannot close any matter on any policy, let alone any topic. However, your actions are in direct violation with the spirit of talk pages. I suggest that you strike your above comment. If you honestly believe in it, I suggest that you leave Wikipedia, as Wikipedia stands for the exact opposite of what your post says. Consensus changes, debate always goes on, and no talk page is closed because YOU feel like it. We have a page at the Village Pump, which shows that you did not read through the conversation, or you would not have made such a mistake earlier. You do not have to feel the need to have your input anywhere on this encyclopedia, but your attitude here is clearly showing an approach to WP:OWN. You do not own talk pages. You do not own conversations. And you do not have the right to say when a topic is done on a talk page. I suggest you reread WP:Consensus also, since you seem to demonstrate an exact opposite attitude to it. In particular: "In essence, silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected." This is in direct contradiction to what you have stated, and I suggest that you strike your comments immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vary. In my opinion, the above discussion does demonstrate consensus in favor of MangoJuice's changes and it is time to make these changes and move on. Nsk92 (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc: Is there consensus to modify the opening sentence of the policy

Does a consensus exist to modify the lead sentence to "Do not make legal threats against Wikipedia or members of the Wikipedia community over Wikipedia disputes"?

clarification The language in the RfC is perhaps misleading by identifying only one sentance of proposed change that many commentors have interpreted to mean that the proposal is to try to 'ban' all legal challenges to Wikipedia. Such is not the case and the proposed changes to the policy can be found in the history all still include explicit language that says 'if you feel you need to sue, you can.' TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support (editor involved in current discussion) Threats of legal action made off wiki are just as damaging as threats of legal action made on wiki and should be treated in the same manner. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not only is there agreement here, but the practice already exists which makes modifying the lead sentence a no-brainer. This isn't a new concept and since it was pointed out that the policy might not be clear on that, there's no reason not to update it and allow it to possible confuse other people. One dissenting user, especially one with a vested interest, doesn't negate consensus. Shell babelfish 01:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • So what does that make me? -- Ned Scott 02:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • New to the discussion :) Btw, I'm not sure if it was mentioned recently, but this did get posted to the VP as well earlier. Nothing wrong with attracting more discussion via an RfC too. Shell babelfish 02:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I believe the spirit of the policy always supported this. Mr.Z-man 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Nothing's really changed. Garion96 (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This might have been what some people want this policy to be defined as, but it's a very significant change, and one I can't support. We don't want legal discussion happening on Wikipedia, that is all. -- Ned Scott 01:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Retracting oppose as long as we're willing to work with something that is not a blanket ban on blocks for legal threats, and continue discussion here. I do not believe consensus has been found for any specific wording, and would prefer that edits are not made to a policy page before they're agreed upon (when contested like this, that is). Especially considering the new wording regarding legal action against other editors. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Restating my opposition. I'm still not comfortable with this kind of change until we get some things clear. -- Ned Scott 02:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • and if it were not for that RFC policy template (which I only glance at from time to time) being on my watchlist I would have never known about this discussion. To those on this talk page: no matter how much you might support something, you have to understand that major changes need time, simply to allow realistic time for the community to become aware of the proposal. -- Ned Scott 02:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • comment re: " We don't want legal discussion happening on Wikipedia, that is all." If you read what is listed as the Rationale "Making legal threats is uncivil and causes a number of serious problems" - the first item mentioned is WP:CIVIL - and it is just as much a violation of civility to threaten legal action via off wikipedia means as to threaten legal action via on wiki means. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Legal action is not wrong in itself, nor is it uncivil. It is a part of the normal operation of many governments where we all come from. Should a person have good reason to sue Wikipedia or a specific editor, then they should be able to do that, because that is what's right. You do not block someone for sticking up for their legal rights when their actions on-wiki are not problematic. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The question is not if legal action is right or wrong or if people have a right to it. The purpose of the NLT policy, as I understand it, is and has always been to discourage people from dragging Wikipedia-related disputes into courts and to encourage them instead to use the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. From this point of view, it should not matter where a legal threat is made, on Wikipedia or, say, on somebody's personal website. Nsk92 (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Then you are very much mistaken. NLT is not an attempt to replace the legal system, nor should it be. It is reasonable to discourage unnecessary legal action, but that's a whole different matter, and greatly depends upon the situation. The point of NLT is to keep legal discussion off of Wikipedia, not to use Wikipedia as an alternative. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I also see it as a method of avoiding the negative effect on neutrality that such threats can create through intimidation. The intimidation is just as real when the threat is made off Wikipedia, as when it is made on Wikipedia. This is likely to give one editor undue influence of another if they are allowed to continue while the legal action is not resovled. (1 == 2)Until 03:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support It has always been this way, this is only a clarification of wording. Policy should reflect our best practices, and if you go around threatening Wikipedians about Wikipedia related issues, you get blocked regardless of the method of communication you used. This is what we do when this happens and policy should reflect this best practice. You have never been allowed to make legal threats to Wikipedians over e-mail or other means, and to allow such would be foolish. I am pretty sure we already have a consensus for this but if we need to provide a shrubbery, then so be it. (1 == 2)Until 02:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose I see what you want to do, but it doesn't work. We specifically have an OTRS legal queue for people to make legal threats to the Wikimedia Foundation. The intent of NLT has always been that we don't let the threats stay on Wikipedia, we block them, and direct them to legal-en. The key words are "ON WIKIPEDIA". What happens off Wikipedia is not within the community's control to dictate. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not a matter of "dictating" what happens off-Wikipedia but rather a matter of encouraging certain norms of behaviour (even if they are outside our direct control) and stating the sense of the community on the issue. Nsk92 (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Really? Because it has said "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." for a pretty long time now. This seems to make it clear that users should not be editing Wikipedia while the legal matter has yet to be resolved. It pretty much says those very words, which is why I am surprised anyone is seeing this as a change. (1 == 2)Until 02:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
And if they use Emailuser to send threats? I think common sense would allow for people to not be blocked for following proper channels. Mr.Z-man 02:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
To Unit, it's pretty clear that it means to not edit to continue the legal dispute. If those involved want to go copyedit an article about flowers, and you insist that we must block them, then I'd have to call that crazy. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a novel interpretation of the policy; I'm fairly certain you'll find that practice (and the block log) disagree with you. There are proper channels for legal concerns -- this is not design to inhibit those and in fact, encourages those be used. Perhaps its not being stated in the best manner, but if a person says "I'm sueing you because you blocked me and won't let me edit Wikipedia" using the E-mail this user feature, how do you believe that should be handled? Shell babelfish 03:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Just pulling a completely random example out of the air, huh, Shell?  ;-) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually yes, I can no longer count the times that's happened on just my fingers and toes ;) And then there's the "since you refuse to allow me my free speech..." or "You called my site spam so...." Its a pretty common tactic. Shell babelfish 04:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I understand that something like that was the case between you and Ottava, but my concerns are for situations not so directly related. For one, someone obviously can't sue someone for being blocked. I'm thinking more about copyright concerns, and other situations. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I'm wondering about the wording. Obviously, we don't want to discourage legitimate complaints (though OTRS is a much more preferable avenue) and we don't want people running to block if someone says "this article is defamatory" either, but we also don't want people threatening and intimidating editors regardless of the mechanism they use. Is there a way we could write things to explain those rather complex differences "in a nutshell"? Shell babelfish 04:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment re: "For one, someone obviously can't sue someone for being blocked." I am not aware that this has ever happened, but I can easily see this happening. I can imagine an attorney being very happy to be paid for taking such a case (assuming it is not on a contingency basis). I personally think it's possible to sue anyone for anything. The plaintiff would be unlikely to win, but it's still a burden for the defendant. Disclosure: I have been the target of at least two on-Wiki (ostensible) legal threats. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Proper channels do not include this website. The fact is that a legal threat is a potent method of intimidation that can seriously damage our neutrality by allowing a user to coerce another. If this coercion happens off wiki, then the user will still be intimidated on-wiki. (1 == 2)Until 02:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This is more blanket "legal action bad" nonsense. And considering the community has been very clear about not blocking regarding other off-wiki issues, I find the argument that it somehow applies to this one situation to be a bit absurd. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
No, not legal action specifically being bad. It is more that threats, legal or otherwise, are incompatible with an environment that fosters neutrality. Not saying it is bad, just not compatible with our goals. If I am a jackass, and disagree with someone I can intimidate them via e-mail and not be in violation of Wikipedia policy? Now that is bad. (1 == 2)Until 06:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support We want to encourage Wikipedians to resolve Wikipedia-related disputes here, using the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, and discourage taking these disputes to courts. Thus it should not matter where legal threats are made, we want to discourage them, period. Nsk92 (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That is not what NLT is for, and we are not in a place to be giving legal advice, or to be making choices for people in how they resolve real world issues. Not only that, but NLT started out regarding Wikipedia and the Foundation, not regarding off-wiki disputes. Before you end your statements with "period" you might want to do a little history lesson on how this policy came to be. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, I am not talking about off-Wiki legal disputes about off-wiki related matters and I am not talking about giving anyone legal advice (see my comments in the long discussion thread above). I am talking about discouraging people from taking Wikipedia-related disputes to courts. I do not view the NLT policy as any kind of legal advice but rather as the expression of the sense of the Wikipedia community about preferred norms of behavior in relation to Wikipedia. As the policy says, we cannot actually prevent people from taking their Wikipedia-related disputes to courts. But the policy does discourage people from doing so. I think that the same logic applies to legal threats rather than actual legal actions. Nsk92 (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you read the whole discussion over the last couple weeks? I know you are new to this debate so I would like to clarify this does not sanction legal action between Wikipedians that does not involve Wikipedia, ie a divorce. This has nothing to do with "off wiki disputes", this is clarifying that making legal threats regarding Wikipedia disputes is not compatible with continuing to edit. If we did allow this then an avenue of unreasonable intimidation would be allowed, and this would damage our ability to be neutral. Threats are not a way to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. (1 == 2)Until 03:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • First message on this page regarding this issue was seven days ago, and only after two days did the change first get placed. You declared the matter settled on the third day. I'm sorry, but the discussion on this page from the last seven days is not enough to warrant this change. I know that's not what you are asking (you asked if I read it, and yes, I have), but you seemed to imply that this was discussed for weeks. -- Ned Scott 03:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This policy exists in part because legal threats of the 'I'm going to sue you if you don't allow me to insert my pov into article X' variety 'inhibit the free editing of pages' and 'create bad feelings and lack of trust'. It's fighting dirty on a level that's 100% incompatible with constructive discussion. That's the type of case that's been under discussion here for the past few days. The same threats, sent through the emailuser feature, will be just as damaging as if they were placed on the user's talk page. -- Vary | Talk 03:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There are such obvious situations that we want to discourage, but I think the wording being proposed here is going to target other situations that are actually legitimate legal concerns. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
(2ec)*"I think the wording being proposed here is going to target other situations that are actually legitimate legal concerns" - How so? Can you provide an example? And more generally, Do you think that the policy should allow make legal threats to WP editors/ against WP off wiki without consequences on-wiki?TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
And do you really have that little faith in people that you think people are going to be blocked for legitimate complaints? Mr.Z-man 04:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It happens every single day. I don't think people do it to be mean or in bad faith, but often they believe they're just supposed to block, as if it were a black and white issue. Don't tell me that doesn't happen. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
So then because a few people don't use common sense, we can't even have the option to block for threats that aren't posted on-wiki? Mr.Z-man 05:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying we should find better wording, so that we can have our cake and eat it too. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course. From the moment that there is a legal threat the two parties should be communicating via their lawyers. If the legal matter is at all related to Wikipedia, Wikipedia should strongly discourage them from coming into contact with each other on its website lest it be drawn into, or complicating, the court case. Note that like all policies on the English Wikipedia project, we use common sense. If a Wikipedian initiates legal proceedings against another Wikipedian, but they never come into contact, then we can safely ignore it as the two people are self-policing themselves. If it is two trusted people, but they have similar some interests and they are typically going to cross paths regularly, we might decide that a topic ban for both users might be the way to go. If on the other hand, the two are obviously going to be crossing paths, the person initiating the legal action should be blocked until the dispute is over. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a much better interpretation on the point of NLT, but I'm not sure if that's the idea other people are supporting here. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That is pretty much what I am supporting. I am not sure if it is the same idea that people are objecting to though. (1 == 2)Until 06:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Suppport, but we can do better than either one. SwatJester sums up perfectly the main issue with the change. He's right, of course, that to a certain extent it's silly to have Wikipedia rules about behavior that doesn't take place here. However, the old "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia" sums up the policy badly and doesn't describe current practice, as Ottava's block situation illustrates. I've written a compromise version that does neither -- it doesn't say "Don't do X" when X might be outside of our jurisdiction, without weakening the previously existing language, and it doesn't overemphasize "on Wikipedia" either - instead, the issue of making threats on Wikipedia is handled in the paragraph about what to do if you do have a legal complaint. It is correct to say that none should be issued on Wikipedia, but that is not the whole policy. Mangojuicetalk 04:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • My compromise version is here. Ned Scott objected to it on procedural grounds. He said it "changes too much" but I have no idea what would be too much other than that he wants the main point to be something that it's not. I'd like to hear what SwatJester thinks of it. Mangojuicetalk 05:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your compromise looks pretty good actually Mangojuice, I don't see anything I don't agree with there. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You did soften some of the wording, but you still added back several sections from before that imply a blanket ban for any legal action related to Wikipedia. Such as "Whilst you may sue in a court of law, this is incompatible with continuing to edit Wikipedia." and changing the statement "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a dispute involving Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." -- Ned Scott 05:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not sure where you are coming from Ned, it appears that 'if you are sueing wikipedia, you cant edit' has been in the policy since 2004 at least [2] TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia directly? Yes. Other editors? No. And it says that someone may be blocked. Context is a wonderful thing. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ahhhh - thanks for the clarificationTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we're still missing that "threatening to sue another editor over Wikipedia" nuance. Threatening to sue my about my laundry, not blockable, threatening to sue me for reverting your edit, blockable -- or does this kind of thing just fall clearly under another umbrella like harassment or personal attacks? Shell babelfish 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this is really about escalating a Wikipedia dispute into a legal dispute. That's when blocks become appropriate. Mangojuicetalk 06:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, and not just escalating a Wikipedia dispute into a legal dispute but also about threatening to do so. The policy should not be just about blocks and enforcement, but also about stating the community preferance for a certain mode of behaviour, even if enforcing it is outside our control. I must say that what I strongly dislike about the current version is that the "Do not make legal threats ..." opening statement has disappeared altogether. The name of the policy is "No legal threats" and I think that an explicit statement to that effect needs to appear both in the opening sentence of the policy and it its nutshell description. From that point of view, I much prefer even the pervious lead "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia" over the current version. Nsk92 (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with this perspective as well, because of its simplicity. This wording covers 95% of the situations where we want to block for inappropriate escalation.
    However it is worth noting that it doesnt cover the situation when user A starts using legal threats on Wikipedia to user B to escalate an offwiki dispute. I would prefer to see us block any parties who are in legal disputes if it becomes apparent to the community that the two parties are crossing each others paths onwiki. The block is a temporary action, to protect the project. In this case, blocking is preventative as a way of avoiding the Foundation being involved, which would result in donated money being used for matters unrelated to the project. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why limit it to Wikipedia related threats at all? A threat is a threat. If someone makes a derogatory, anti-gay comment to a heterosexual user, that wouldn't prevent us from blocking him for personal attacks anyway, even though the attack didn't really apply to the person. There's two important bits to cover: 1) Legal threats anywhere about a Wikipedia dispute are (or should be IMO) forbidden because of the civility/intimidation issues. 2) Threats of any nature don't belong on Wikipedia at all. Mr.Z-man 06:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It sounds so simple and sensible when you break it into two parts. :-) John Vandenberg (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Do not make legal threats against Wikipedia or members of the Wikipedia community over Wikipedia disputes" is significantly different from the other change that was being discussed here, which was essentially "don't edit while legal disputes are ongoing" (stronger than the current policy's focus on public threats). The essence and intent of the policy has always been to channel legal disputes into legal avenues, and this goes well beyond that. --bainer (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 'point of clarification "The essence and intent of the policy has always been to channel legal disputes into legal avenues" is not actually valid. Please read the very first point made in the very first version of NLT - it is that legal threats are harmful to Civility and NPOV. (and that lawyers are evil - can we bring that back?)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That is actually completely incorrect. The intent of this policy has always been to channel legal disputes into the appropriate avenue; that is, through the foundation (directly in the past, and via OTRS legal now). Saying that lawyers are evil is ridiculous and has never been in the policy, and is a rather offensive joke IMHO. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The history of the page does not support you (except about the lawyer joke). TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The history of my work with the foundation's legal department does. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Nice of you to keep the policy page in a state that reflects the practices. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil and refrain from ridiculous comments like the above. If you can't get your point across without snide remarks, you really should not be making it. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Please assume good faith and note that I am thanking you for your presence here now. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. We can not order people not to pursue legal action, nor punish them if they do so. For that matter, Wikipedia really shouldn't be attempting to regulate off-wiki behavior at all. -Amarkov moo! 00:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. I've never understood this policy to mean anything to the effect of "don't make legal threats at all" -- we don't have the authority or ability to stop lawsuits, and presuming to claim that's in our domain is both arrogant and foolish. What we can say, and what I've always understood this policy to mean, is that users making legal threats or engaging in legal action are barred from editing until those threats/actions are resolved one way or another. In short: you can edit or sue, but not both. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
We are not ordering people not to file lawsuits, but asking them to use the Wikipedia dispute resolution process instead of legal actions/threats to resolve Wikipedia disputes. Encouraging the use of Wikipedia dispute resolution process and discouraging dragging Wikipedia disputes into the courts is in the interests of the entire project, as legal threats (whether on or off wiki) inhibit free and neutral WP editing. This is the stated rationale for the NLT policy.
Even under your more narrow reading of the purpose of the policy, what is the difference between someone making a legal threat on and off wiki? Do you mean that if someone publicly threatens to sue Wikipedia, say on their own website, but not on Wikipedia itself, that such people should be allowed to edit Wikipedia without withdrawing the legal threat? That does not make sense to me. Nsk92 (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: It's unreasonable for Wikipedia to step outside its jurisdiction and tell people what to do in their off-wiki lives. It's unreasonable for Wikipedia to, in effect, tell people that if Wikipedia is violating their copyright or displaying libel in their BLP that they are not to take legal action. The policy has been and should be that if someone is involved in (certain categories of) legal action, then they cannot edit Wikipedia. That's reasonable, because it's about wiki-editing behaviour: who can and who cannot edit Wikipedia. That's something that Wikipedia can, and has a right to, reasonably enforce. But to go and tell people that they cannot walk into a courtroom or cannot have their lawyer mail someone a letter is just way outside the bounds of what Wikipedia ought to be doing or has any clout to enforce.
An alternative that might satisfy what the writers of the new sentence may be trying to do might be something like this: "If are taking or have taken or threatened to take legal action about a Wikipedia dispute, you may never again edit the articles that were involved in that legal action." (or "you may never again edit Wikipedia.") Perhaps that goes further than the current policy and perhaps that's not what we want the policy to say. My point is that the policy should at most prescribe on-wiki behaviour – it should not tell people what to do or what not to do off-wiki. To the extent that Wikipedia does have some power to punish non-Wikipedians for off-wiki behaviour, I definitely do not want Wikipedia to exercise that power in that way.
In other words, I think it's reasonable for the policy to say that if you're taking legal action then you can't be a Wikipedian, but I think it's not reasonable for it to say that if you're a Wikipedian then you can't take legal action (or even worse, in the proposed form, just plain you can't take legal action, no if's.) Here's a link to a joke which may help illustrate the point. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is preventing legal action, there is no stepping outside of jurisdiction. This is about not letting people edit while the are taking legal action against Wikipedians or threatening to. It gives one editor the ability to intimidate another and that damages our neutrality and creates a hostile environment, people who resort to legal action have an unfair advantage in content disputes. What you said in the last paragraph is pretty much what I thought we were going for. (1 == 2)Until 17:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
"It's unreasonable for Wikipedia to, in effect, tell people that if Wikipedia is violating their copyright or displaying libel in their BLP that they are not to take legal action." - Nobody is suggesting any type of legal threat anywhere be absolutely forbidden, rather, if you are taking legal action, do it through the proper channels, which don't include Wikipedia talk pages, emails to others users, forum posts, etc. Its also possible to notify Wikipedia about copyright violations or libel without threatening legal action, and a notification with no threat is excluded under the policy. Mr.Z-man 17:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That's all just fine. I'm simply opposing the following wording because it seems to me to step outside of jurisdiction: "Do not make legal threats against Wikipedia or members of the Wikipedia community over Wikipedia disputes". Some other wording may be fine. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As I see it, Coppertwig, context and location are the key issues here. Oversight exists so that people with legitimate legal issues can talk directly to those who have the power to understand, evaluate, and decisively resolve them from the top down. It's not hard to do so. People who insist on deliberately ignoring this tailor-made option by posting their threats wherever they please are, from my experience, mostly just bullies who are doing precisely what we're trying to prevent. They deserve their indefblock until they publically take it back. The "off Wiki" reference is designed to include people who think it's okay to carry their harassment and threats against WP users into a separate venue. If the violator includes Wikipeda usernames, the chilling effect is VERY much still there, regardless of whether it's on AN or Wikipedia Review. Why should we even THINK of treating it differently?Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 22:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

rather, if you are taking legal action, do it through the proper channels - the problem is, the proposed edit is to make it so that people are blocked for taking legal action even through the proper channels. And some of the people in favor of the edit don't see the problem with that! —Random832 (contribs) 06:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I cant speak for others, but "proper channels" means nothing to me. If two people are in a legal dispute regarding Wikipedia, they have appealed to a higher authority, and it is in the interest of the project to stop them from engaging each other on Wikipedia any further until the matter has been resolved. As I said above, if they self-police themself, there is no reason for admins to get involved, as we should be issuing the blocks if/when they start interacting on Wikipedia in a way that looks problematic. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a perfectly valid argument, but the proposed text goes well beyond that. Text that would cover what you are saying would be something along the lines of "don't edit while legal disputes are ongoing". --bainer (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly as bainer said; the wording as proposed up top seems to go way beyond that. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose per Thebainer and Swatjester. Legal actions are not inherently problematic. We just don't want them on Wikipedia itself. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That does not make sense to me. If legal actions in relation to Wikipedia disputes are not problematic, then why have a policy against making legal threats at all? If they are problematic, then why is a legal threat made off-Wikipedia is any less problematic than one made on Wikipedia? They both have essentially the same practical effect of inhibiting free editing, which is the first stated rationale for having the NLT policy. Nsk92 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, it wouldn't be a bad idea to say at all that people should not edit while there are ongoing legal concerns. That's different than what this does which seems to assert that legal issues are inherently unacceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I believe that "No Legal Threats on Wikipedia" is clear, precise, concise, and explains the essence of the rule. It would make Mark Twain happy. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polarization

I think we've become polarized in this discussion. I came here because I didn't think we were ready to implement a change, at least not with the current wording, not because I was opposed to any change. I understand there are some things that we all want to clarify, as well as things we want to discourage. Now that those on this talk page have heard more than just one person objecting, would it be a good idea to go back to the drawing board? We might not make everyone happy, but already I can think of a few ways that would probably satisfy multiple concerns. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit too early to claim victory, don't you think; this has been viewed by many people over the last few days, and only a few people have objected. Give it 24 hours, and then if there is a majority, those in the minority should reread the thoughts of the majority to see if they actually do agree in principle, and it is only minor concerns that have caused them to be in the minority. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
No, see, you're comment is a prime example of why we discourage voting, and a prime example that we are getting polarized. In no way am I trying to "claim victory", and I certainly hope no one has that mentality here. You've completely missed the point and need to take a look at WP:CON and m:Voting is evil. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The only sense in which this has become polarized is that only the previous two versions are being considered. We should be able to address everyone's good faith concerns. Mangojuicetalk 04:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I am in error then, but it was my understanding that the above RfC was looking to validate specific wording, rather than continue discussion and consider more options. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
To John, I'm a bit confused by your comments. In the RfC above, you seem to have proposed just what I was hoping someone would do. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
"on Wikipedia" is at odds with what I wrote above. So I am keen to have "on Wikipedia" qualifier removed, so I support modifying the opening sentence of the policy, which is what this RFC is about. The change is necessary; the specifics can be worked out after the RFC. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess it was too soon for me to comment, as the discussion doesn't seem as polarized as I thought. Sorry for the friction tonight, everyone. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much polarization. Despite the use of bold summaries, it is clear that people are making cogent and creative arguments for and against the proposal. This is not two sides tallying, but a productive discussion of a complex idea. (1 == 2)Until 06:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A few summary comments on the recent discussion and the recent changes.

1) I strongly dislike the fact that in the current version the opening sentence "Do not make legal threats..." disappeared altogether. This rather takes the wind out of the policy and leaves too much room for equivocation. This is an important policy whose name is "No legal threats" and it needs a strong opening sentence with a clear punchline. In this regard I would even prefer having the old lead "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia" to the current situation.

2) This policy, as are most other WP policies, is not just about blocks and enforcement but also about encouraging certain modes of behaviour and discouraging others and giving guidance to WP users about what is appropriate and what is not. Thus the policy should not concentrate just on rules regarding punishments but also express the sense of the community about encouraged and discouraged conduct, even if enforcing it may on occasion be outside of our control.

3) The policy does not constitute legal advice (perhaps that should be made clear in its text) and does not impede anyone's rights to legal recourse.

4) The rationale section of the policy summarizes very well the reasons for having the policy, the first of which is to ensure free and neutral editing of WP pages that is not inhibited by legal intimidation. This rationale applies to both legal threats against Wikipedia itself and against individual Wikipedia editors, regardless of where these threats are made, since the practical effect, in relation to inhibiting free editing, of making such legal threats on- or off-Wikipedia is essentially the same. Thus I think that the formulation "Do not make legal threats against Wikipedia or members of the Wikipedia community over Wikipedia disputes" is reasonable and well justified.

Nsk92 (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the points that Nsk92 makes above. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain, Nsk92, how "Do not make legal threats against Wikipedia or members of the Wikipedia community over Wikipedia disputes" can be seen as "does not impede anyone's rights to legal recourse."? I don't see that at all. I agree that the policy should not impede anyone's right to legal recourse. That's the point I was trying to make. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It is because Wikipedia's policy has no legal force and only expresses the preference of the Wikipedia community. We are asking (not ordering) people to use the Wikipedia dispute resolution process for resolving Wikipedia-related disputes, rather than use legal threats or legal action. But we cannot stop people from pursuing legal action if they choose to do so and the policy makes that clear. Nsk92 (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
"If you dont do X I am going to sue you" is a legal threat - person making the threat is blocked from editing WP. There is nothing in the block from editing WP that stops that person from filing a complaint in a court of law. "Remove X content because I am the copyright holder and do not give rights to WP" is not a legal threat and was also specifically allowed within the policy page. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be worded ""We cannot stop you from making legal threats against Wikipedia or members of the Wikipedia community over Wikipedia disputes, but if you do then we cannot let you continue editing here in order to preserve an open atmosphere free of intimidation."" or something like that. Opinions? (1 == 2)Until 15:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
works for me TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I am first to agree with coppertwig that we cannot prevent people from taking legal action, nor should we if we could. But that is not what I think the intent behind this change is(even if the wording were using may have lead to that assumption). (1 == 2)Until 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I may take a crack at a compromise version this week myself, based in part on some of the related principles that I thought through and wrote about when the Arbitration Committee decided Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch earlier this year. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this:

"Please do not make legal threats against Wikipedia or members of the Wikipedia community over Wikipedia disputes. We ask that you use the Wikipedia dispute resolution process to resolve Wikipedia disputes.

It is your right to take legal action and we cannot stop you from taking legal action or issuing legal threats in relation to Wikipedia disputes. However, if you do so, you may be blocked and prevented from editing Wikipedia until the legal dispute is resolved or the legal threat is withdrawn."

This would make it clear that we are asking, not ordering. Nsk92 (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I can support that. I think it better gets across what was meant while settling the issues others are concerned about. (1 == 2)Until 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that Wikipedia can't order here. For at least some disputes, it may be possible to require acceptance of binding arbitration as a condition for editing and designate the ArbCom as the arbitrators for such a purpose. Such a requirement may possibly be enforcable (See Arbitration in the United States of America. However, there may be consequences, such as possible requiring ArbCom to deal with matters or adopt procedures that may be less than desirable, or Wikipedia may not wish to impose a binding arbitration requirement for other reasons. I would imagine any such requirement would be a Foundation matter requiring a lot of legal advice. However, it might be more accurate to say that Wikipedia chooses not to stop you than to say that it can't. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Per Until, this seems to address the discussion above pretty well. Might change "may be blocked" to something that implies a higher probability (I believe this is generally supported, both by practice and consensus). I'd be happy with it, I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Additions to the Page

I believe the following would allow for this page to serve Wikipedia in a better manner:

  • This page would benefit from examples on what constitutes a "legal threat" and what would be perfectly acceptable. Potential examples of threats: "You are plagarizing and I will sue you if you don't remove it" "That is a lie and I will sue you for libel" Potential examples of non threats: "I believe that the page may be infringing on my copyright. Could you please edit the page accordingly?"
  • Distinguishing Threats from Legal Action more clearly. Threats falls under appropriate civil behavior. A threat on Wikipedia would deal primarily with a page and what is written on a page. Most threats are resolved by withdraw, which normally comes from a change to the page or other such actions. Legal Action may or may not deal with what is written on Wikipedia (but deals with what potentially could be written on Wikipedia). Make a section for Legal Action to explain that people may use Wikipedia to attack people during cases or be potentially violating a conflict of interest. Explain that Wikipedia pages used in that fashion may exacerbate the Legal Action or potentially draw Wikipedia into the legal action, which is not desired.
  • Incorporate aspects of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:BIO, and WP:COI into the page in order to draw how this policy connects with them.
  • More clearly define what the specific blocking policy is for these threats as opposed to the standard blocking policy (i.e. removal of threat warrants an unblock, and legal action would warrant a block to prevent conflict of interest and other such problems). Define appropriate measures to deal with admin if you are entering into a legal action in order to prevent such problems happening in the future.

Thank you for your consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The first point sounds like a good idea. More examples would be helpful. Regarding the second point, I absolutely did not understand what you are talking about. Could you please clarify? The third point sounds reasonable but I'd like to see something more specific before substantive commenting. The fourth point requires some debate as well as some specific suggestions. In general, I think that NLT policy should be largely preventive rather than punitive. So providing overly detailed blocking procedures may not be a good idea as it may also encourage some people to skirt around the NLT policy. Ultimately, we do need to rely on the discretion and the common sense of the WP administrators; there are also standard procedures for appealing blocks etc if some admin gets out of line. Having said that, if there were sufficiently widespread problems with WP admins' use of the NLT policy, a more specific language regarding blocks may be warranted. Nsk92 (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Point by point. 1: We already have WP:NLT#What a legal threat isn't, which would clearly cover all the examples you gave. Should we change that section? I don't think examples are all that good an idea: it's the principles that matter and I think that section explains things roughly right. (We could always create an auxiliary essay, though, say, Wikipedia:What is a legal threat?.) 2: I'm with NSK; I don't really understand. I think we equate legal threats and legal action here, but I think that's on purpose and sensible. But maybe you could clarify what you mean here. 3: I don't think WP:NPA, WP:BIO, or WP:COI really relate to this policy. WP:BLP, maybe, and we are already linking there. 4: I'm with you. "May be blocked" does summarize things accurately but very loosely, we should be more clear. Mangojuicetalk 13:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Mango, 1) that section does not provide what I mention, i.e. concrete examples. People need concrete examples or there will be far too much gray area to make the rule effective and prevent people from acting against. 2) "on purpose and sensible." Actually, its not on purpose or sensible, because legal action could have nothing to do with Wikipedia, except that someone could be involved in legal action and use Wikipedia not to issue threats, but to vandalize or other such things. If you are currently suing Coca Cola, you probably shouldn't be editing the page. 3) NPA relates to this policy because libel is one of the measures that are threatened over. Bio relates to this page for the same reason as libel. The difference is one is against a user and the other is against an actual page. Conflict of Interest relates to this page for the response given to number two. I hope that makes sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
3: Libel is not a personal attack in the sense that WP:NPA means, because WP:NPA is about how editors treat each other, not about article content. WP:BLP is more precise in applying than WP:BIO -- BLP is the policy specifically about being extra careful to avoid libel. WP:COI and Re to 2: This policy is about legal threats and action over Wikipedia disputes. It's not about legal disputes unrelated to Wikipedia. If this isn't clear enough in the text we should make it clearer. IMO the other behavior rules we have (WP:CIV, WP:COI, and WP:HARASS) are sufficient to deal with cases where users might be involved in non-Wikipedia litigation. Mangojuicetalk 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Mango, do you honestly believe that NLT deals strictly with Wikipedia content and would not apply to what is said between two editors? If someone accuses me of something on my talk page, I could attack them by saying I'd sue them for libel. This happens regularly. BLP and BIO are the same to me. And Mango, disputes unreleated to Wikipedia that are brought onto Wikipedia are clearly then related to Wikipedia. The fact that you mentioned those three is exactly what I would like to see on the main page in order to distinguish what happens when someone is at a court and then takes it to Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
To preempt a possible problem - when I say they are the same thing (BIO and BLP) I mean that they deal with information about people that may end up being controversial or lead to people attacking each other over statements. They are two parts of a greater whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If someone accuses you of something on your Wikipedia talk page, like, say, edit warring, and you respond saying you could sue them for libel, that is exactly what this policy is about: a Wikipedia dispute escalated into a legal threat. WP:BLP and WP:BIO are closely related; I see no reason not to link to WP:BIO but the connection between this policy and WP:BLP is already covered - that's my point. As for disputes unrelated to Wikipedia becoming related to Wikipedia, I'm not sure; I think it would depend on the situation. We don't have a big problem on Wikipedia with, say, spouses going through a divorce getting into it on Wikipedia, or people suing company X editing the X article under a conflict of interest. In fact I'm not aware that this has ever actually happened. Does anyone know of an example? I think the reason we're specifying "Wikipedia disputes" is more so that what we say doesn't sound silly, not because we actually have a policy for what to do with people involved in non-Wikipedia legal disputes. (I think, for instance, that if people are involved in a non-Wikipedia dispute, it shouldn't make any difference to us whether or not lawyers are involved, although that is a sign that the dispute is very intense). Mangojuicetalk 13:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"In fact I'm not aware that this has ever actually happened." I would seem only the ultimate continuation of Conflict of Interest. Remember, you aren't supposed to edit pages in which you are involved with in such a way, and with all of those IP checking programs that find out what company people are involved with, I am sure you could trace quite a few to law firms who make edits that would be deemed as offensive or defensive in regards to the issues they are involved with. Look at many of the "neo nazi" pages, and you will see people involved in various trials. The fact that someone may constantly edit out some history while others may put far more in might actually be involved in the propaganda surrounding the trial. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Nsk92, 2) See the above in which the two are disconnected to each other, i.e. legal action that did not have a legal threat preempt it. 4) Part of a prevention is to provide reason for the block, i.e., "if you do such an action, expect ___ result in order to achieve ___". For example, explaining that a block over the legal threat is to prevent unCIVIL behavior and to allow the issue to be handled without it being blown out of proportion would be necessary so an editor would not think that they were being punished or the admin were deeming them wrong. We should guide them towards the best way to act and give reasons why this is the best way. This page is rather short, after all, and could use some elaboration. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm-m, if I understand your meaning correctly, then I don't like this idea. I think that the aim of the NLT policy is to discourage both legal threats and legal actions related to Wikipedia disputes (in fact the latter even more than the former), including legal actions that were not preceded by legal threats. Nsk92 (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, but there is no real mention or detail about what "legal actions" really are or how they could affect Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


On Mango's statement about an essay - I think such a thing may be good. However, the format of the essay would probably be done by having possible "situations", maybe 3-5, and give an incorrect response and a correct response. There really should be essays based on how to deal with many of the common problems that tend to be ignored. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want to caution - one thing this essay should not do is to try to show how to make threatening statements that might seem like legal threats but are not. That is, I don't think we should be exploring the borderline, per WP:BEANS. But I don't think that's what you have in mind. Go ahead and start it, I'd be happy to help. Mangojuicetalk 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I have better things than to spend all my time on policy pages. This is an encyclopedia after all, and policy pages represent less than .1% of articles. You can feel free. I'm just throwing out ideas. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorporate wp:dolt?

With the low notability and the high number of BLPs being too much to keep an eye one, can we include a note for patrollers to make sure what they revert is sourced per wp:v and wp:blp? -- Jeandré, 2008-04-15t19:29z


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -