Wikipedia talk:No legal threats/Archive 1

Bans on users taking legal action

 * If you ignore the advice above and take legal action against another Wikipedia contributor, then we regret to inform you that we may have to temporarily revoke your editing privileges on Wikipedia. We do this for the protection of all parties involved: both you, the person against whom your legal action is directed, and Wikipedia as a whole.


 * The revocation of editing privileges is effective solely as long as the legal action is underway, and will be lifted as soon as we are informed that it has completed, either by the case being dropped, or settled, or resolved in a court of law.


 * We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.

Wikipedians who support revoking editing privileges for people making legal threats against Wikipedia contributors:


 * Martin (but not strongly)
 * richardchilton
 * Dori (only applies to threats, not to actual action)
 * [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:31, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Adrian Lamo Elucidated below.

Wikipedians who oppose revoking editing privileges for people making legal threats against Wikipedia contributors:


 * Perl (unless the user is obssessed with iridology)
 * Anthère0
 * Jamesday (reasons below)
 * Anthony DiPierro (we'd have to get rid of Sites that use Wikipedia for content)

Wikipedians who think that this should be decided on a case by case basis, and that many if not most legal threats are in clear violation of Wikiquette, which is a bannable offense:


 * Angela
 * &mdash;Eloquence
 * Camembert
 * Flockmeal
 * Metasquares Only if they're bypassing dispute resolution or the threat is unjustified.
 * Luis Dantas
 * Jwrosenzweig (obviously a little biased, but I assumed my opinion was welcome)
 * Jmabel 08:58, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Bill 20:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:47, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC) (another solution in need of a problem)
 * Nickptar 02:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) (if the lawsuit is within reason, no ban; if it's just to be a dick, ban)

Wikipedians who oppose revoking editing privileges for people taking legal action against Wikipedia contributors:


 * Optim
 * Anthony DiPierro (if a Wikipedia contributor commits copyright infringement of Wikipedia, no one can sue her?)
 * Jamesday 01:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * --Christi 21:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC) "legal action against Wikipedia contributors" seems too broad a category... see notes below.
 * > Energy (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC) - people do have basic human rights to take legal action against people.

Discussion
I support the revoking of privileges...why? Simply because those that really do have a grievance can engage in legal action anyway. No need for threats, plenty of need for discussion. Dori | Talk 23:28, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with this page. If someone does something that makes me want to take legal action against them, I don't see why I should be the one who is banned from Wikipedia. You seem to be assuming that all legal threats are made by the problem users, rather than against them. If the legal threat is also a violation of Wikiquette, then the user can be banned for that, but they should not be banned just because they made a legal threat. Angela. 23:39, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Angela, what I'm saying is go ahead and take the legal action if discussion doesn't get you anywhere. There is no need for making threats however. It's mostly trolls that make legal threats. This rule would get rid of them rather quickly. Legitimate concerns can still be taken offline. Perhaps my point of view is different from what the page actually says, but it is in line with the title. Dori | Talk 23:43, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this a little odd? I user1 has cause to consider legal action against user2, and user2 has provided no contact email for offline communication, user1 would be banned for telling user2 that they are considering legal action? Am I missing something? 207.189.98.44 00:00, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * The process of litigation contains provisions for identifying potential defendants that have neglected to give you their business card. And you can engage user2 without resorting to legal threats. If the current dispute resolution process on Wikipedia fails your needs, work to make it better.
 * Yes, the answer to a lot of issues raised in numerous discussions here is "fix it!" -- but that's the model editors work under. That this is an evolving community, with changing standards and procedures, with the option to give input available to anyone.
 * Adrian Lamo 18:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no useful reason why someone having a Wikipedia account should prevent me from taking copyright infringement action against them, for example, nor from telling them that I am going to do so and seeking to resolve the matter without recourse to law. At least one Wikipedian has infringed my copyright on something and the matter has been resolved without recourse to law after a discussion. "No legal blustering" on the other hand, might well have some significant merit as a practice. Jamesday 20:56, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Legal threats versus Legal action

 * We need to differentiate between legal threats and legal action. Optim 23:47, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * For example, User-1 could sue User-2 because of libel on Wikipedia talk pages, and Wikimedia Foundation could know nothing. Should we ban User-1? Optim 23:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I had initiated some discussion on this on the WikiEN mailing list. The reader of this page may be interested to check the mailing list archives at mail.wikipedia.org Optim 23:51, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that in this case, User-1 should refrain from editing Wikipedia, for the protection of all concerned: User-1 for not further inflaming the situation (reduces possible damages), or drawing attention to the libel (reduces possible damages, harms reputation). User-2 for not being baited into committing further libel, or making comments that might harm their defence. And of course we don't want third parties to get dragged in. (Eg, if I blank a libellous page without comment in a vandal-like manner, and you revert me, are you guilty of libel?).


 * Still, I may be extrapolating too far from my own feelings on the matter: if most Wikipedians are fine with folks taking legal action against each other, that's worth knowing. Perhaps we should be asking two questions: (1) do you support the policy of "no legal threats", and (2) do you support bans for the duration of any legal action? Martin 00:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I support neither. Consider a valid copyright infringement situation. Should the infringed party be banned? Now, if we could have some way to differentiate between reasonably well founded things and bluster, that may well have significant merit. Jamesday 20:56, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Treason
Given user:Mr. Treason I removed the word "proposed". Martin 23:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In order to fend off another Mr. Treason-type dick (god forbid), perhaps the editing page should have, along with the GFDL and merciless-editing disclaimers, a disclaimer stating that you may be banned if you sue another user. In fact, why not have such a disclaimer applied to a lot of possible offenses (violation of Wikiquette, vandalism, trolling)?


 * Benefits: we can tell vandals/trolls/rude people "We told you so", possibly deflecting them, and potentially preventing a legal threat (although such a lawsuit would probably be tossed out in ~30 seconds)
 * Problems: we immediately look like the Deletionist Sysop Oligarchy that has been so often said to exist, as opposed to only looking like this after taking action against a dick

Also, returning to the Mr. Treason issue, we could even have a disclaimer saying that by contributing you give up your right to sue Wikipedia or another contributor. It's not that I think this is a good idea, and I know that preventing people from suing other contributors may be legally impossible, but it's just a suggestion in line with the above. There might be merit in it if a Mr. Treason-type user actually could pose a serious threat. Nickptar 02:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clarification needed
I think some serious clarification is needed on the question of "legal action" and/or "legal threats". It would seem obvious that to encourage an open community that legal actions and legal threats related to Wikipedia itself should be banned or otherwise discouraged. However, as stated currently, the policy appears to be far too broad. It appears that you are proposing that anyone with any legal action pending against another user be restricted from making any changes. Unfortunately, there are far too many disputes that can only be resolved through legal action which have nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia.

Consider, for example, hypothetical UserCP and UserNCP. These users used to be married and have children together. UserCP is raising the children. UserNCP is, for want of a better term, a deadbeat dad. Under the policy as outlined, UserCP would be asked to not edit Wikipedia articles if UserCP has to take legal action to resolve the issue of child support? This clearly has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Similarly, if we consider, again completely hypothetical, UserCollegeGirl and UserOveractiveTestosteroneBoy in the case where the latter attacks the former, are we asking the former not to press criminal charges against the latter if she wants to edit Wikipedia? This seems to be a request that is not in the best interests of Wikipedia or public policy in general.

I would suggest modifying the policy to reflect that "legal threats" unrelated to Wikipedia have no place being discussed in Wikipedia and that "legal threats" and/or "legal actions" directly related to Wikipedia result in actions against both users involved until the dispute is resolved (including limitations on editing pages in which either party is involved). It might be possible for the sake of the community to ask that Wikipedia users who are involved in "legal actions" that do not involve Wikipedia refrain from contacting the adverse party using Wikipedia (possibly including refraining from editing pages in which the other party is involved, but I worry this may stifle work on articles where the issue in contension is not related to the article). --Christi 21:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposed change
I think the policy needs to make an exception for severe vandal problems; in the worst cases legal action could be a reasonable thing to consider, and consequently I think we should be able to discuss that on the wiki. Can everyone agree on this change? Everyking 07:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 13:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I came here to make that very suggestion. This link is Broken 14:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. SUE WILLY! N (t/c) 15:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree with this proposed policy. While I am in no way condoning the annoying and persistant Willy on Wheels vandal, I do feel that making legal threats is going too far and crossing the line. There are a number of legal matters that would infinitely complicate Wikipedia, and once under the scrutiny of the judicial systems, I feel Wikipedia would become more constricted. In addition, we would have to make several addendums to existing policies to tighten them; for example, what constitutes vandalism? In a court of law, I doubt that we could argue that our policies in the Wikipedia: namespace are law, and I highly doubt that we could "prove" that the page moves were "vandalism" (even though we, as editors, clearly see them as mass vandalism). Also, if this rule is applied, what stops editors on Wikipedia from claiming the another party is a "severe vandal"? A line must be drawn somewhere, and "severe" is very open to definition. Thus, I believe that we should follow our own policy of no legal threats and not revise the existing policy. Thanks for reading my (humongous) paragraph, and happy editing! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Thanks to everyone who helped clean up after the Willys; you are all very much appreciated.
 * As I read the policy, there is no need to change it to address the Willy problem. No legal threats prohibits legal threats by Wikipedians when they are intended to cause disruption inside the Wiki. However, there is no stipulation that Wikipedia has to tolerate disruption from outside the Wiki. While Willy is technically a user, I dare say that there isn't one Wikipedian that would call him a contributor. He just comes here every now and then to make our lives miserable for a few minutes, because he gets a kick out of it. --Tito xd 20:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Change of policy name to emphasize avoiding legal action
The policy is badly named. There is no such thing as a "legal threat", legally: anyone has the right to enforce their rights under the criminal law by reporting violations to authorities including criminal libel or conspiracy. Also, anyone has the right to sue someone else in an ordinary civil case of libel. Some people are scum, and need to be reminded that such rights exist, else they spread rumours without limit.


 * Wikipedia cannot prevent you from suing somebody, but it can refuse to carry your threat of a lawsuit, and it can sanction you for making such a threat. N (t/c) 14:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Another reason to change the name is that it does not sufficiently state the flipside of the policy. If one wishes to be free of legal actions, then one must also be free of illegal behaviour. This line is correct:


 * slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia; true instances of such writing, that might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large. but where? speedy deletions?  VfD ?

It is unfortunately qualified by this messy statement:


 * Disagreements as to the identity of a person, their motivations for a given action, opinions of third parties about them, etc. do not fall under slander, however, and you should not use legal threats as a bludgeon to get your POV enshrined in an article.

Most cases of libel on Wikipedia do indeed arise from disagreements about the identity of a person, their motives, or what opinions third parties state of them. Very often, a certain mythological version of these things is agreed on as being "true for Wikipedia purposes" and gets repeated, though it contains falsehoods. A good example is the statements recently made at User_talk:24ip by low-integrity User:UninvitedCompany. While pretending to "warn" User:24ip that they might be confused with someone else, they repeated several false, several unprovable, but quite commonly believed statements, seemingly in an attempt to get these statements on the public record. This is very very dangerous. Warnings about this were attacked under the existing policy, which action alone would be enough to get Wikimedia sued: If the persons making these comments were warned they violate policy, and then the warner was IP-blocked, what more obligations do they have? None. They may proceed to court and can claim correctly that they did in fact follow the appropriate process. And they'd win.

Accordingly, make a separate policy no libel or rename this one, or both. And make very clear that a bunch of separate statements from separate sources requires a bunch of separate attributions and evidence, else, tone down the statement to what can be proven in court, else, face the libel lawsuit alone. No excuse to drag in Wikimedia with you, especially if the comments aren't in an article but a discussion page.

Finally, libel is now so frequent that a rapid reporting system for it is very much needed, like the one for copyvios.

Minor Change
I have just changed the text "and you should not use legal threats as a bludgeon to get your POV enshrined in an article" with the stronger, and I believe more accurate text, "and you will not be permitted to use legal threats as a bludgeon to get your POV enshrined in an article". After reading the discussion here, I have come to the conclusion that this change fits the intended spirit of the page better and would be considered a minor change by all parities involved. Of course, if another editor doesn't agree, please change it back. ... :) --Gmaxwell 23:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

legal action against vandals clarification (sort of connected to WoW and Replies)
So from what I can see, there is some confusion and disagreement about whether no legal threats applies to vandals, mostly centred around Willy on Wheels (on the WoW page and this here). Now, this bit on Replies:"Wikipedia is also an unattractive spam target for well-established legal reasons. Most countries do not have laws against USENET or email spam, but most have laws against unauthorised website defacement — what we call vandalism."states that wikipedia vandalism is equivalent to website defacement, and that there are laws against that. It seems to imply that legal action against (extreme) vandals is a possibility.

Would it be possible to either make it explicit that wikipedians should not discuss possible legal action against vandals, or on the other hand make it explicit that vandals should not expect protection under the "no legal threats" policy? Because I'm a bit confused by all this. --Codemonkey 14:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Can we have a clarification on this? — Omegatron 06:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

'slander' and 'libel'
Radient! recently added "If you're in a dispute with another editor, please avoid terms such as 'slander' and 'libel'.". I reverted the change for a couple of reasons: For one I think it's not obviously covered in the spirit of the text and should be discussed first, and secondly it looks weird to tell people not to use the words after we tell people to please point out libel on the Wikipedia! The words slander and libel are used widely outside of a legal context (at least in the part of the world I travel in) and do not imply a legal threat on their own. Furthermore they are the only precise words in english that describe what they describe succinctly. Finally, adding a prohibition of specific words turns WP:NLT into more of a boobytrap, making it more likely that users will break policy even though they were acting in good faith and following commonsense. In accordance WP:IAR we should try to avoid creating surprising policy. I would, however, find a more general recommendation to be clear that you are not interested in taking legal action if your language might give a reader cause to think otherwise, and of course the policy should tell you to clear up any such confusion right away. --Gmaxwell 22:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I guess Radient! isn't going to discuss this... Do other users find his new version acceptable? I dont really, but don't want to get into an edit war over something so silly. --Gmaxwell 13:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

When used with precision--to refer specifically to damaging falsehoods, these words are appropriate. A reasonable response to appropriate use of such language would be (as in the outside world) a retraction and apology. The vast majority of all cases of alleged defamation end in decent, if not cordial, reconciliation and mutual satisfaction--no lawsuits or threats are involved. Nobody in good faith wants to make misleading or false statements about the facts. --Tony Sidaway Talk 13:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC) I completely side with the view that it is not a personal attack to point out a personal attack! Libel is a word of precision that is why it is used in legalese. It doesn't imply you are serving them with papers, that is a leap of logic beyond me. Having one's character repeatedly besmirched, being labelled as a fraud and liar, in order to silence your voice on Wikipedia articles would, I believe, be worthy of the term "libel". It would be nice to think that intellectualism and discussion prevails on all the articles, but the truth is many articles have their biased POV safeguarded without regard to Wiki policy. Shining a light on that behavior, calling it by its proper name, should be labeled "courage" and "the best interest of Wikipedia", not "uncivil". --FreedominThought 21:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'd be happy to talk about it, I just hadn't had time to respond here yet. I didn't intend it to be prohibitive; more like a consideration to use other words in preference. I must say I was rather surprised to see several people consider the word "slander" to imply a legal threat, but of course IANAL. In my experience it's often useful to expand explanatory pages to state the bleedingly obvious; in a user dispute, using strong words like 'slander' is likely to be counterproductive. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, a better place to include the sentence may be WP:CIV or WP:NPA. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't agree there either, It's not a personal attack to suggest that someone has done something wrong. Heck, the currently agreed on text in NLT directs you to call people on libel. Perhaps in CIV we could make mention of how sensitive some people are about those words... that I wouldn't oppose. --Gmaxwell 15:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's kind of my point. The word slander implies that someone made statements that are 1) false, and 2) derogatory. That's two rather personal remarks. There are certainly some situations in which the word is a perfectly accurate description of the matter, but in general people should avoid using the word. By the same spirit, it is preferable to say "I disagree with foo" than to say "foo is a liar". Even if he is a liar, it's not a constructive way of dealing with a dispute. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 16:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What to do with legal threats
I recently received legal threats on my talk page from an anonymous user with no other contributions. I will link them:

Legal threat:

Contributor: User:66.101.11.58 Contribs: Special:Contributions/User:66.101.11.58 (i.e. none besides that edit - ever)

So what is the proper recourse?

I thought that I sourced the article quite well, and indeed they agreed with most of the points made. But they are insisting that "It is just a rumour that he did that - you can't prove it". But it is stated as a rumour, which is the whole point of it. It is a rumour that was widely believed to be true, and had 15 sourced references that people used to believe it to be true. It was never stated as fact - only stated as a rumour. But that the rumour was important because it led to the death of talkers.

Now, their defence, apparently, is that Virus says that he didn't do it. That's it. Nothing else.

Am I required to remove the information, where it demonstrates clearly that the rumour was widespread and influenced things? The assertion of fact is only in the fact that the rumour was spread and influenced things greatly. Do I have to remove it? What is the ruling there?

They also implied that they would sue me for slandering his good name. Yet I didn't say his name. I said Virus. Virus isn't a real person (and I for one find it amusing that a person who calls himself Virus is insisting that the rumours that he hacks places is a lie) and hence how can it be slanderous? If it is in relation to the business, well, the business doesn't make any money about anything. Indeed, as they have already said, the fact that the rumours were spread actually increased their popularity.

I don't see why we can't write the articles from a neutral point of view, and I welcome their contributions, although I wish that they'd source them better. But I am not too fond of the legal threats.

What should I do? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 00:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Report them at WP:AIV. Jesse Viviano 19:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dershowitz
Would it be a good idea to change this policy to "no legal threats unless you are Alan Dershowitz". See the Dershowitz Talk page for details. - Xed 08:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking through the page, it seems to me that there is a lot of nutty speculation going on that could undermine Jimbo's ability to handle a delicate situation. Also we ban users who make legal threats; nowhere do we say we won't respond to legitimate complaints, whether they include legal threats or not.  All No legal threats says is it's not appropriate to make threats and be a Wikipedia editor at the same time. -- SCZenz 08:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * - this is the threat. Jimbo caved in. It's time to change the No legal threats page to reflect this new policy. Xed 08:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I assume Jimbo had a more substantial concern to justify his actions, as in fact he states he does. You are making assumptions about a great deal of information you don't have, including the identity of the one making the threat. -- SCZenz 08:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where Jimbo has denied it is Dershowitz? - Xed 09:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Why is he obligated to make any such statement? Jimbo is ultimately responsible for Wikipedia and his content, and I say that if he's asked for an article to be fixed up and has decided not to share the exact nature of the complaint he received, he has a good reason. -- SCZenz 09:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't share your views on infallability. - Xed 09:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ultimately, I don't think that Wikipedia has any right to have a "no legal threats" policy. After all, if someone breaks the law, they should be punished. Stating to someone that they believe that they have broken the law should be permissible, if not encouraged if Wikipedia as a whole is to be a law-abiding community. If legal threats are nonsense, then you can ignore them. If they have substance, then you really should be worried. No other internet community has a policy of "no legal threats". And having such a policy leads to the ridiculous situation whereby potentially someone could be banned for having had their rights violated. That's a very wrong situation. Per this policy, Seigenthaler could have been banned from Wikipedia for threatening to sue Wikipedia. Clearly therefore, it is time to scrap this policy once and for all. And of course if anyone actually was banned for making legal threats, their bans should be reversed. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 15:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC) And specifically User:Daniel Brandt, who made legal threats in relation to Daniel Brandt, i.e. him being prohibited from editing it, and his henceforth requesting its deletion. This is the same Daniel Brandt who just days ago saved Wikipedia from the Siegenthaler controversy. I think that he has demonstrated good faith by doing that, so his ban should be reverted. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 15:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's odd. Dershowitz blanked his own article and yet Jimbo caved in to his "strong complaint". If you're powerful enough, the legal threat rule doesn't apply. - Xed 20:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see Brandt's act of injecting himself into the Siegenthaler issue as being in good faith. It smacks of desire to add fuel to a fire that was otherwise about to die. Wikipedia didn't need 'saving' in this respect. Having read Brandt's edit history and his own account of the events leading to his own blockage, it seems evident that he just couldn't be troubled to use the extensive processes which Wikipedia has in place for review and arbitration of content. I've edited my own Wikipedia article for accuracy a couple of times, but never for opinion, tone, or unflattering content -- Brandt could easily have done the same. *THAT* would have been good faith. Siegenthaler was one guy that didn't clearly grasp the Wikipedia editorial process; Brandt is another. Wikipedia should exercise care in blocking critics, but legal threats have no role in developing good content. -- Adrian 22:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're Adrian Lamo, computer hacker? Hmm.  Anyway I will say no more on that one.  We'll just say that I totally disagree with you. By the way, how come your article says that you are "misunderstood"?  That's not very neutral, is it? Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not unexpected that you might disagree with me. I did, after all, disagree with you first; I'd be pretty surprised if you _didn't_ disagree. Cheers :)  Adrian Lamo 23:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read the page!
Can people who are going to comment on this policy please take 2 minutes to read what it says first? All it says is if you're gonna threaten legal action, whether legitimately or not, you can't be a Wikipedia editor at the same time. -- SCZenz 20:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So what you are saying is that people who have articles written about them that are defamatory are only allowed to threaten legal action if they do it by post and are not known to be an editor at the same time? Is that right?  So, for example, Seigenthaler et al can threaten legal action quite legitimately, and something will be done about it, whereas if someone is actually an editor, then they will get banned and nothing will be done about their complaint?  Is that right?  If so, BAD policy! Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 12:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, we can't stop people from making legal threats, at least not if they live in the United States, where the Bill of Rights applies. (Or, for that matter, any country with similar previsions on Freedom of speech.)  We have no control over non-Wikipedia actions and expressions, and laws trump Wikipedia policy.  But making legal threats while continuing to edit Wikipedia is something we do have control over. It is disruptive and has been used by trolls as a hammer to get their way; this is not an accepable situation, so we ask people who wish to contemplate/discuss legal action not to edit.  Legal threats made on Wikipedia are unlikely to be seen as serious; if an editor had his lawyer mail Jimbo a letter, that'd be taken as seriously as the situation deserved regardless of that person's status as an editor.  Does this make any sense at all? -- SCZenz 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but this is the most ridiculous proposal I have ever seen for a serious project. The proposal just says in other words: "we do not care about the law, we are a freestate". Either I misunderstand this proposal seriously, or who-ever proposed this had a serous black-out.


 * And yes, I understand that it is just about "threats for legal action". Fighting trolls is a good thing. But why not just block everyone who edits an article "because it has frequently been used by trolls". Why not block everyone who uses English "because it has frequently been used by trolls".


 * Whatever the reason, this page has already been used to block someone on the nl.wikipedia, where this never has been proposed and neither discussed.


 * I know of at least one situation where a threat with legal action has been used on nl.wikipedia by someone who is surely not a troll, but a very active serious contributor. The use of the threat in that case was particularly usefull and helped instantly make someone apologize.


 * Seriously: if you want to fight trolls, then fight the trolls, but don't make it look like you want to create a freestate where no law is applicable. Taka 18:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. In practically every internet forum I've ever been involved in, legal threats have been an important element of controlling abusive users and ceasing their abusive activities.  Only the most absolutely abusive continue to abuse after a legal threat against them (such people are almost always trolls).  Stating applicable laws to them and demonstrating the illegality of their actions is an important step.  I do not think that Wikipedia can function whilst maintaining this rule.  Other online forums have briefly had variations on the "no legal threats" rule, but had to remove them - for example LiveJournal briefly considered it to be harassment, but after legal advice removed it from their policy (and indeed briefly deemed harassment to be okay).


 * Also, as a point of law, note that most cases *IN REAL LIFE* are dealt with outside of court. Just threatening legal action against someone for, for example, stalking you or harassing you, will usually end it immediately.  At worst, you will have to contact a lawyer who will then send them a letter.  The proportion of cases where cases of this nature actually make it to court are tiny, and even then, they try to settle out of court.  This is the preferred option by most lawyers, judges, and legal systems throughout the world.  In short, the legal system works because it encourages legal threats.


 * Now, I know full well that certain sections of the internet believe that they are "above the law" and therefore can't be prosecuted. They do things such as claiming anonymity, claiming invasion of privacy, and claiming international jurisdiction to try to avoid prosecution.  But such people should not be encouraged, for they are effectively outlaws.  Whilst we must acknowledge that it is much more difficult to prosecute someone over the internet, we should not cease the general principle of legalities as they stand.


 * Why must we force someone to get a lawyer and actually make legal action before we will even allow them to make a threat? This is ridiculous.  This is a severe misinterpretation of what a legal threat is, and is suggesting that it has the same merit as a death threat (which in itself is rarely prosecutable).  And again, yes, it might be mildly upsetting for someone to be legally threatened, but it is much worse to actually be libelled or to have someone criminally attacked.  Whether you are able to prosecute or not should not prohibit you from your right to state your legal rights.  Going to a lawyer and actually initiating legal action is very costly, and, combined with anonymity, international complications and privacy laws, it is next to impossible to prosecute someone over the internet - but this should not prevent Wikipedia, as a legal entity, from acknowledging that certain actions are indeed illegal.


 * Whilst this policy might have been made by consensus, it was not made by lawyers. Banning users for making legal threats could (and indeed should) have significant legal implications for Wikipedia.  Whilst this has not happened yet, we should expect that at some time in the future, it will, and we should not take it as given that just because nobody has yet successfully sued Wikipedia for being banned for making a legitimate legal threat (that we know of) that it will never happen.  This is an extraordinarily dangerous policy. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 16:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A trivial side issue
At the foot of the page,See LegalThreat takes the reader to a page which includes the classic piece of Americanglish "he won't do it, so he is threatened to loose his credibility". This obviously needs to be corrected, both for grammar and spelling, but editing doesn't seem possible. Can someone please sort it out. ....dave souza 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Also, meatball is editable. Martin 19:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A practical question
For the purposes of this policy, does someone saying "That's libel! That's libel!" in response to comments made about him comprise a legal threat? &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 18:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it a legal threat for me to point out a copyright violation? "That's libel and I'll sue you for it" would be a threat, but "that libel" by is an observation.  An appropriate reply if there is an question about the intent is to outright but politely ask the person if they are making a legal threat. --Gmaxwell 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Mitigation of damages
"But, if you really feel the need to take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we ask that if you do so, then you do not edit Wikipedia until the matter of law is settled - one way or the other - to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels."

Wouldn't the party who takes legal action also be legally obliged to edit Wikipedia on the grounds that he is obliged to mitigate damages? Ken Arromdee 18:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
I can't help thinking this policy page ought to contain a reference to Arkell v. Pressdram.

Legal threats
I find that considerable confusion as regards to the issue of legal threats. It appears really amazing to find persons reacting aggressively even when words like law, legal, and legality are used to convey a particular position vis-à-vis its legality. Thus, very normal interaction becomes embroiled in emotion and sentiments. IMHO, such a position arises as the exposure of a number of us to legal matters are very limited, and there is nothing unusual in this as a wikipedian is not expected to be a legal expert, albeit some of us may be having a good exposure of legal matters on account of relevant educational background and training in the field of law. --Bhadani 14:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What about legal threats against Wikipedia?
Is making legal threats against Wikipedia prohibited by this policy? It appears to only apply to making legal threats against other editors. Here is an example of a legal threat against Wikipedia. Someone comes along and finds an article about herself on Wikipedia. There is nothing defamatory in the article and it is referenced. If she says that she will sue Wikipedia for having the article or sue if it is not removed, would that be prohibited by this policy? If not, should it be? Here is another example. A new user creates an article. Then, someone else edits the article. The user is enraged and says that he will sue Wikipedia for altering his work (I know this would not succeed, it is just about the threat). In both of these cases, especially the second, there is a good chance that the legal threat is just that, a threat, and the person does not intend to take legal action. When someone makes legal threats against another editor, the policy says they are blocked so that the only communication is through official channels. Even when there is a small likelihood of someone taking legal action, I think they should be blocked because they are trying to use threats to intimidate other editors and the Foundation in order to get their way (threatening the Foundation seems to be rather successful, unfortunately). I propose that the policy be modified to include Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Kjkolb 08:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there any objections to the policy being changed to include legal threats against Wikipedia? -- Kjkolb 21:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Should there be an exception to this policy if someone wants to prosecute a prolific vandal like Willy on Wheels?
Should there be an exception to this rule if someone wants to prosecute prolific vandals who do extreme damage to Wikipedia like Primetime and Willy on Wheels? It is starting to get apparent that maybe the way to shut such vandals down is to have the Wikimedia Foundation file either police reports or lawsuits against those who do this. If suggesting this itself is a legal threat, please respond on my talk page and I will remove this suggestion. Jesse Viviano 18:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's the Foundation's purview, since they're the ones being hurt by it (Especially Primetime, who is FAR more damaging to them then WoW, since he exposes THEM to legal threats). 68.39.174.238 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Willy on Wheels is in England and the Wikimedia Foundation is located in Florida. I don't think we would be able to extradite somebody for page move vandalism. — DominiquePonchardier  21:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with DoniniquePonchardier&mdash;in the (probably unlikely) event anything like this were to happen, any such initiative would have to take place on behalf of, or at least with the authorization of the Foundation. I think it's implicit that anything done with express permission of the WP:OFFICE would be permissible. Newyorkbrad 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can help with this. If WOW is in the UK, then interference with Wikipedia occurred in the UK and remedies should be pursued with a UK attorney. We have so many contributors here that perhaps a UK attorney is among them, who would be willing to handle the case for a reduced fee. Criminal charges are extremely unlikely, but an injunction that forbids similar misconduct in the future (with a contempt of court charge if the injunction is violated) should be available for a fairly low cost. Dino 16:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

application
If I stated that I thought Wikipedia was in violation of the law, and that I was contacting an appropriate law enforcement, would that be a blockable offense? I just saw that happen, and it seemed rather strange. -Freekee 05:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While that is not really a threat, the policy seems to indicate that for the duration of the legal action the user should not edit wikipedia, perhaps the block was simple to help the user do so. Not sure, just guessing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, it should have been stated. I don't think that was the case, though. The person it happened to was certainly being a persistent jerk. I'm sure the blocking was a reaction to that. But the person's last couple of comments were, after he was warned about making legal threats, disbelieving that he made legal threats and taking pains to clearly state what he was going to do, to avoid being banned for making threats. I would have preferred he be banned for a different offense. And his threat was to call the Attorney General about the pornography found here in articles about anatomy. Which is kind of laughable anyway. Thanks for your answer. -Freekee 18:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

you guys take this site waaaaay too seriously
what do you think wipipedia is? you ain't cnn. in fact, this site doesn't really matter much... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.136.197 (talk • contribs)

I can't realize these legal threats sentences!
If you do decide to proceed with legal action, you should deal with it privately with the user by e-mail. Do not thrash out the issue in a Wikipedia forum or talk page; you may find that other users take the side of the other party. (Would you really want to sue a group of users if that happened?)

These sentences above are quoted from No legal threats. However, ... --Sushisushi 09:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"privately"? "by e-mail"?
--Sushisushi 09:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC), 10:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * These sentences above are typically legal threats and unreasonable requirements, because anybody but FBI agents can not detect or resolve with the person(s) in question "privately", "by e-mail". Moreover, if problems happen in Wikipedia because of Wikipedia, because of Wikipedians, Wikipedia and all Wikipedians have no right to refuse using Wikipedia to resolve the legal problem that occured in Wikipedia, or among Wikipedians. Have these sentences above really supported by the Consensus of English language Wikipedia's Community?

"Do not thrash out in a Wikipedia forum"?

 * Wikipedia and the other Wikipedians should lead all the Wikipedians in question to special pages. Don't be afraid. Are all current English language Wikipedians hoping to be insulted and scorned as evil and coward people by all ordinally brave people? I am not! The sentences above should be replaced by new decent ones like that:

If you do decide to proceed with legal actions, you can deal with them officially with the other users in the special pages which are prepared by Wikipedia. Please thrash out the issue in these Wikipedia forums, even if you filed a suit for your damages. We can get very important lessons directly, if you do so. You may find that the other users begin to take your side one after another, if you are less evil. (Would you really want to sue a group of users if that happened?)

--Sushisushi 09:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC), 10:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)