Wikipedia talk:No legal threats

"Wikipedia:BADWORDS" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:BADWORDS. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 14:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-legal, non-physical-harm threats
I tried the shortcut WP:THREAT and wound up here, which in turn points, via hatnote, to Responding to threats of harm. Does Wikipedia prescribe any course of action in the face of a threat that is non-physical but still harmful like, in an edit summary, "The next user who deletes this will be DDOS'd"? (See Ddos if questions about that.) Largoplazo (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a threat and I would have blocked but it's just silliness from an ephemeral IP. I have no objection if someone else wants to block, and I will block if you alert me to a repeat of the disruption. You might like to sign again. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Relevant TfD nomination
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 29 § Template:Sub judice. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Listening to and understanding legal threats
A discussion on WP:ANI recently led to the outcome that there might be room for nuance in our current policy of immediately blocking for legal threats. The concern that arose from this discussion is that someone of notability (or in some cases, non-notability) who finds an article on Wikipedia describing them, when that article appears to be an WP:ATTACKPAGE or something else broadly BLP-violating on Wikipedia, might be sufficiently upset or incensed to the point that they may view legal threats as their only real outlet to remove this page. This is particularly the case if their edits to remove the violating content are reverted - whether it's in good faith or otherwise. The current WP:NLT policy, as broadly enforced by Wikipedia's administrative corps, calls for those users who engage in such legal threats to be immediately indefinitely blocked unless and until they retract the threat for legal action.

Now, the user that is blocked will find it difficult - unless they are already an experienced Wikipedian - to navigate Wikipedia's bureaucracy to both get unblocked and to get actual assistance regarding the content of the article. Currently, WP:DOLT suggests that the concerns behind the legal threats be researched and, if necessary, the content which prompted the threat be removed. But that article is an essay, not a policy, and what is not so clear is whether immediate indef blocks should be the first step to responding to any such threats regardless as to whether or not the complaints are merited. Since the ANI discussion regarding this dilemma was closed and redirected to the WP:NLT talk page, here we are.

So what should be the eventual outcome of this? Should we consider elevating WP:DOLT to a guideline or policy? Should indef blocks not be considered as a first response to legal threats? What options have we for addressing such issues where the complaints turn out to be merited? WaltCip- (talk)  17:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% that the issues brought up during a legal threat need to be investigated if it seems they have merit. However I also think they need to be blocked while this is happening until the threat is retracted. The reason for this is that we are not qualified as volunteers to deal with such threats, only the editorial aspect of them. The other reason is that it is a form of intimidation that has a chilling effect on neutrality.


 * An effort should be make to communicate on the talk page and to examine the article but under no circumstances should the user be allowed to engage in ongoing legal intimidation towards our users, nor should we be attempting to determine the legal validity of the threats. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Communicating on the talk page with the aggrieved user, and blocking the aggrieved user for legal intimidation (and in some cases, removing talk page access) are two mutually exclusive principles. I think this is the argument that is being made by those who want to elevate WP:DOLT. I also agree that Wikipedia and its editors (apart from Wikipedia's own legal team) are not qualified to assess the veracity or strength of legal threats. But it's also important to know that legal threats are usually a last resort by the person in the event that their previous methods of resolution have failed. Of course, that user should be blocked for a multitude of reasons if that threat is baseless and the content in question complies with WP:BLP standards. WaltCip- (talk)  14:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Related to the above, I feel strongly that the blockee needs to understand the situation. At the moment, there is an incredibly tiny, very-small print link to this article, but the block text itself merely says they've been blocked for making threats. You have to remember that the person who made the threat probably feels very strongly that something unjust has happened. Their hormones are up, they're angry. They're not going to see the tiny link, or follow it, and they'll never know why they got blocked. They will simply jump to the conclusion that Wikipedia is not interested in accuracy, sources, or "the truth" but is merely suppressing those who disagree with what "the administrators" think. These threats usually come from people who do not edit regularly, and do not know how Wikipedia ticks.
 * The situation would be much improved if the standard block message were improved, to explain (1) that WP takes accuracy seriously and has dispute resolution procedures; (2) that the temporary block is imposed because the dispute must be held in one place only, either a court or via WP's own dispute-resolution system; (3) that the editor is free to withdraw their threat, and choose instead to make use of WP's own procedures (with a clear link to instructions on how to do so). This would make it clear the block is not a vindictive act. Of course the block is also there to prevent the chilling effect of legal language, but to be honest, that's a lesser problem. Legal threats happen daily, and most of us are so anonymous we couldn't care less about a huffy comment; we're not put off. Also, you cannot calm an angry person by shouting at them; you have to sort out the situation first, and only then explain the emotional consequences ("chilling effect") of their threatening behaviour. I would strongly recommend some serious debate on improving the block text. Elemimele (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of a situation I saw just the other day (sorry I don't have the link handy, I'll add it if I find it). An IP editor mentioned some concerns about a BLP page, and within the report stated that "someone might" resort to the legal system if the content in question wasn't revdeled. Not that this editor would take legal action, but just a suspicion that some third party might try to take legal action. I wonder if it would have been better to simply educate the new editor with a link to WP:LEGAL, and treat the new editor's comment as a good-faith suggestion of the content being libelous, although treated as not serious enough for a RevDel by consensus? DavidLeeLambert (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request
Include a link to WikiProject Law as a hatnote at the top of the article, such as this:

172.112.210.32 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Since there's already a hatnote related to the LEGAL shortcut, I added the WikiProject to that line. Firefangledfeathers 17:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2021
Please revert Special:diff/1059824910. There was wide discussion in 2018, which mostly considered the removed paragraph uncontroversial, the removal seems less trivial than the edit summary implies and requires some discussion. As for being "contradictory to actual practice", I can see some problems with using the fact that a policy isn't respected as an argument for changing the policy. 176.247.135.220 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I trust the person who made the removal. Additionally, policy pages should mirror practice, as that is demonstrable consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguably, in theory, practice should also mirror policy pages and the civility policy survived similar arguments for deletion. Anyway the end of the Perceived legal threats section has almost the same content, making this more a matter of prominence and the edit summary more puzzling; if the main concern is wikilawyering, it looks like a defendable choice. I am also confident that this will be enough to bring to the change the amount of scrutiny it deserves. 176.247.135.220 (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Which email should concerns over defamatory content be sent to?
This page gives info-en-q@undefinedwikipedia.org, while the edit notice on WP:AN gives oversight-en-wp@undefinedwikipedia.org. Which is preferred? -- Visviva (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-social"
In the light of ASBOs and similar orders, should an editor who repeatedly accuses others of anti-social comments be considered to fall under NLT, or is that just a general NPA case? While I'm not terribly concerned about receiving an ASBO, I don't know if someone editing from England would have a greater cause for worry. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)