Wikipedia talk:No legal threats/Archive 3

Retitle...
I've been fairly involved in discussions relating to Guido den Broeder (which I'll leave to that, and other pages...) - but something has come up which I think warrants attention.

I believe in the spirit of this policy, and believe it's likely that here on en we should apply it foundation wide (bear with me - that's a bit of a side issue too!) - however, I'd like to suggest the policy move to what I believe is a far better name.

For me, the pronouncement 'No Legal Threats' is useful in some sort of blunt situations, where the application of what I've seen referred to as a 'cluestick' actually helps the editors involved (don't like that metaphor either really... but now I'm just grumbling!) - but in nuanced or more serious situations, it actually serves to escalate the situation unduly, and causes problems. People are entitled to seek legal redress per the laws of their respective jurisdictions - they're just not allowed to participate on wikipedia while they do so. This is quite genuinely a great idea to protect all parties, but I think the subtext of the title 'no legal threats' is different - saying that you're 'not allowed' to do something that might quite clearly be something you should in fact do (seek legal redress to repair damages under libel / defamation law for example).

I would suggest Participation prohibited during discussion or action in legal matters - it's a ton less snappy, but kinda says almost enough on the tin to not have to read much more - I'd support keeping all shortcuts in place, and could go on for a country mile about why titles matter, but won't..! - thoughts most welcome... Privatemusings (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what you're driving at is that people shouldn't have to surrender basic rights available to them under the laws of their jurisdiction if in fact they have not threatened any legal action on wikipedia? The indefinite block during the proceedings of the legal action would have the same force as the WP:NLT policy does now but wouldn't force people to prejudice themselves against a future proceeding, legitimate or otherwise? xeno  ( talk ) 00:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * that's one aspect of it, X - but it's also a bit simpler than that. Wikipedia of course has no authority, nor ability, to manage any editor's rights or responsibilities under law - it's my concern partly that the current title, and application of the policy in some places, is leading to a sort of confusion in this area. 'No Legal Threats' implies (to me) that an editor taking legal action against another editor for libel, for example, is 'breaking the rules' - this is (or should be) incorrect - it's solely their participation in Wikipedia during resolution of the legal matter which is restricted. I think of it this way - if the legal action were to be concluded, and a court found that the editor had indeed be libelled, that editor should be welcomed back to contributing here, with the rightful sympathies of having been a victim of a crime.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC) I'm feeling kinda inarticulate about all this, so apologies for that! - I hope it's coming across that I think I've got something useful and important to say!
 * As you explained it, I agree 100% as long as it is understood that legal threats still result in an indefinite block until you ensure that that particular legal threat is withdrawn. We cannot deny legal rights from people, but we can block them for the duration of time a legal proceeding is threatened (or ongoing). Unblocks would require an assurance that the particular legal issue is not ongoing and that there is no legal threat with respect to that incident. xeno  ( talk ) 01:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the current title explains our position very well. Chillum  01:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the page itself clearly confirms the person retains rights to instigate litigation, Chillium is right. To put it crudely: "Sue all you want, but that, or making a legal threat will result in an indef block." xeno  ( talk ) 01:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My suggestion would be to have two separate policies: one about making legal threats (and other kinds of threats), which is disruptive behaviour, and one about legal action (not just sueing or litigation, btw), where the community simply wants to avoid getting involved. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Legal threats make wikipedia less civil and makes editing much more difficult because editors need to worry about possible lawsuits screwing up their personal lives. In addition, editors are at different advantages since those who post under their real names would be at far greater risk than anonymous editors.  Wikipedia has it's own dispute resolution mechanisms, and doesn't need lawsuits to resolve disputes and certainly doesn't need them adding an atmosphere of acrimony and fear.  The policy is phrased as "may result in blocks" only because a modicum of flexibility is required but in general, someone who makes legal threats is unlikely to refrain from editing wikipedia of their own volition.  Hence, blocking is a means of avoiding temptation and protecting the community from disruption.  Taking legal action is the ultimate expression of a legal threat.  There is no need for separate policies - if anyone wants to edit wikipedia, they should not mention law suits here, period.  Editors can sue other people.  They can edit wikipedia.  They just can't do both at the same time.  No need for nuance, no need for qualification.  No-one should use lawsuits as a way to short-circuit dispute resolution, solve a problem, gain an editing advantage, force a specific interpretation or POV onto a page, or any of the other ways a real-life lawsuit could interfere with the regular editing of wikipedia.  No need for two policies as this one is explicit in forbidding editing while legal action is a concern and that's the approach wikipedia should maintain.  WLU (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A policy that attempts to put Wikipedia above the law and invades users' privacy is automatically invalid and will therefore only cause disruption. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia spans the entire world and accordingly several legal systems so there is no single 'law' that it can be placed above. It is not a legal right to edit wikipedia.  It doesn't invade privacy since the editor in question must disclose the legal threat themselves, on wikipedia.  The policy is valid per its acceptance by the community, not by any abstract conditions.  The policy exists to prevent disruption to the community by preventing legal threats from causing disruption.  And somehow the community managed to muddle forward with the policy in place for years, growing to millions of articles and a greater number of featured articles since 2001, accelerating since this policy was created in 2004, so obviously it's not so disruptive as to actually disrupt anything.  Don't sue, don't threaten to sue, is a sensible policy, one that emphasizes wikipedia's in-house dispute resolution mechanisms.  It's simple, and obviously it works.  WLU (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just offering my advice. If you don't get it, fine. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policies and guidelines change according to consensus. I'm indicating I don't believe there's sufficient consensus (or need) to change the policy, the page title, or blocking upon an entry into the legal system.  WLU (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are probably correct, WLU. Wikipedia is flawed that way. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

IP making legal threats
Guidance as to how long an IP can/should be blocked for making legal threats would be appreciated by this admin. Toddst1 (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless the contributions show one person using the IP for a while or the same IP continues the same behavior after a prior block then there is a good chance it gets reassigned regularly in which case I think a week is good. There are technical ways of getting a hint as to if an IP is static or not, I don't know how to do that myself. Chillum  15:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

need to define legal threat
We should do this while there is no pending dispute. We should define what is a legal threat. I am sure there are talented lawyers who could offer advice.

With most regulations, the offense is defined. Not here. Spevw (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a thankless job but something that could be useful in the future.


 * First draft: A legal threat is a stated intention to file a complaint in a court against another Wikipedia user or Wikipedia Foundation which includes a cause of action related to written contents in the wikipedia.org website.

Commentary: If someone says "you keep on editing like that and I will have you banned" would not be a legal threat. Nor would "I know who you are and if you don't pay the rent, I will sue you" (though it may violate privacy rules and be subject to blocking). How about "keep this up and we will report you to the school principal"? This is not a legal threat per the above first draft. Should it be? Spevw (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for your note inviting me over here, Spevw - my first reaction is to say that I'm more concerned with good communication of the principle involved, rather than clearer definitions of the rule (or the terms used within the rule) - you can see my thoughts for a re-title above. It was my recent experience that there's actually quite a bit of confusion around on this matter - and I'm not totally sold that the answer to that confusion lies in definitions etc. - some things actually get harder to pin down, the more you try! I have this page watchlisted again now, so will follow along, and pipe up if I have anything I think is interesting or helpful! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a problem of communications? Wikipedia doesn't like to be punitive even though some individual administrators do it.  Trying to keep a balance, perhaps... "Prior to blocking for a legal threat, administrators must notify the user in a polite way to explain that legal threats are prohibited and subject to blocking.  Since administrators are expected to be familiar with policy, those who fail to discuss and warn users before blocking should be subject to blocking themselves for a minimum of 24 hours in order to prevent disruption of Wikipedia rules by use of their sysop ability."  The blocking of administrators is very controversial.  Some feel that adminship gives near immunity to block.  I understand that but this is merely a proposal to address the communication issue mentioned by Privatemusings. Spevw (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the definition here is being too specific. If you announce _anywhere_ that you're going to sue Wikipedia, you shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia; given that this is a volunteer organization, you shouldn't be suing yourself. If you announce on Wikipedia that you're going to sue anyone else on Wikipedia, for any reason, perhaps you're using Wikipedia as a battlefield, perhaps you're trying to intimidate another editor; neither of these is conducive to creating an encyclopedia. The offender should of course be given the opportunity to clarify their intent, after being advised of the consequences. Usually the outcome of such an opportunity is the editor rescinding the offending comments. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A legal threat is a stated active written intention on wikipedia.org or in any other source to file a complaint in a court against another Wikipedia user or Wikipedia Foundation alleging unlawful conduct related to written contents in the wikipedia.org website. It excludes non-judicial actions including, but not limited to, reporting alleged misconduct to a school principal or librarian or threats which are withdrawn.
 * New version incorporation jpgordon's comments and other comments:

It's good to see that we're discussing this before any active problem. We can then consider everything slowly and carefully. Spevw (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Still way too specific. Why "in a court", for example? "I'm taking this to the police" is also a legal threat. No idea what "stated active written intention" could mean. Suit doesn't have to be or "unlawful conduct"; there are lots of things to sue for, not all of which can be called "unlawful". Leaving it vague is better -- or perhaps spelling out what does not constitute a legal threat. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Once someone (maybe more than once) threatened suicide and editors said they would call the police. By blocking people for making threats for this, then we would be blocking helpful people. Therefore, I think that reporting to the police should be exempt from the legal threat. Since JP suggested spelling out what does not constitute a legal threat, then this should be one. Reporting things to the police is not a legal threat. The police tend to be practical as they don't arrest people over civil matters, like website language.


 * New version of proposal (new ideas included)
 * A legal threat is a written intention on wikipedia.org to file a lawsuit against another Wikipedia user or Wikipedia Foundation alleging unlawful conduct related to written contents in the wikipedia.org website. It excludes non-judicial actions including, but not limited to, reporting alleged misconduct to a school principal or librarian or threats which are withdrawn, and reporting incidents to the police.


 * A legal threat is not informing an individual of the law. In the event of ambiguity, clarification from the person issuing the alleged legal threat is required as well as notification of the NLT rule.


 * Example to clarify: is "You've libelled that other guy and he could sue you if he wanted." a threat? How about "That sounds like libel, and if you don't provide evidence for it you could have your pseudonymity stripped and could be charged in a California court with up to $$$$ in damages"? – SJ +

Better now than when there is a crisis or dispute. Spevw (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew wiki
(Copied from Talk:Main Page) Hey, the Hebrew wikipedia is threatening to sue us as seen here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 22:31, 25 August 2008
 * WP:LEGAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.65.200 (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming that "משתמש:" means "user," then this is someone's user page. I think one individual is threatening legal action, not an entire Wikipedia. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts On This Policy.
What do you lot think about this policy?I like it since it strictly enforced that legal action is not tolerated. User:Agent008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From personal experience - people have threatened me several times without any consequence whatsoever - I can tell you that it is not strictly enforced at all. Further, are you sure that you want legal action not to be tolerated in all cases? What if you receive a death threat, for instance? Do you think it is correct that you are the one who gets blocked if you decide to take measures? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 08:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Wikipedia should have a zero tolerance policy; for vandalism, death threats, legal threats, revert wars, edit wars and personal atatcks because it is simply unacceptable.User:Agent008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.56.20 (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The policy "it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved" is too broad, and should be replaced with a more careful and nuanced policy that distinguishes baseless legal threats from actual protection of legal rights, and that takes into account the impact of the specific case on Wikipedia. For example, suppose that user A unlawfully posts B's credit card number on Wikipedia. If B sues A for invasion of privacy, then B would be blocked (or otherwise required to refrain from editing Wikipedia) for years until the matter is tried and A's appeals are exhausted. I do not see how such blocking would help Wikipedia. Worse, if Wikipedia editing is very important to B, then A can act unlawfully with impunity since B will not bring any legal action for fear of being blocked. Dmytro (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that I misunderstood what the article meant by "dispute". I clarified the article to prevent this misunderstanding.  I still think that the policy is too broad (but at least, it is reasonable), and I am uncomfortable with blocking users for reasons other than their actual or expected behavior on Wikipedia.  Dmytro (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

New section on perceived threats
I've added a new paragraph captioned "perceived threats" based on a principle in an ongoing arbitration case and my experience that there is a recurring issue arising from users alleging that another user's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous." I've added the paragraph to the policy page, as I trust the essence of it should not be controversial, but of course I would welcome discussion here and any improvements to the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks brad. This is an important addition as comments of this nature come up waaaay too often. I'm going to make a minor change though, and add "repeated" to it. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * NYB's version, in my opinion, did not adaquately address the concerns expressed by myself or the user who commented on the case:
 * There are occasions where users are genuinely going to feel (for example) that the only way to describe what misconduct is occurring is by calling it defamation - note: at the time, they don't actually have an intention of taking legal action of any sort, nor do they perceive it as a word confined to legal proceedings. Whether it's out of unawareness or feeling that the alternative terminology we use here is inadaquate, they continue to use variants of the word "defamation" as opposed to "personal attacks" or "harassment". And I've only too often seen the "I hope you will retract it" phrase being used repeatedly in a way that is not at all reasonable.... Yes, we should discourage the use of those terms, but we need to show some level of understanding too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 27 August 2008 (UTC)"


 * "Agree with Ncmvocalist, the legalistic terminology itself is chilling but when there is no threat of action behiond its use that language only becomes problematic when it's being used unreasonably or to gain an upper hand in content disputes--Cailil talk 12:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)"


 * "We all search for the "right" word or phrase to convey the depths or heights of our position especially when involved in verbal conflict. We might use legal sounding words in "real life" (not that this isn't real!) to say to our adversary, "Enough, Already. I'm gonna SUE!". We have no intention of suing, it's an idle threat, meant only to say, "You've gone beyond the limits. STOP!" True, less charged words should be used, but in most cases those less charged words have NOT worked. I think it is a "slippery slope" if Wikipedia starts to limit the available vocabulary because of a possible perception (and that is all it is) of legal action. We are all faceless (and lawyer-less) entities...all we have is words.--Buster7 (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)"


 * I did make a full revert. Given the frequency upon which legal threats are brought up at admin noticeboards, it's something that needs to be right when it's put in. However, I think I've addressed these concerns in my modified version, so I've reinserted it on the same basis - the spirit of appears to be uncontroversial. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

current version reads as follows: While such comments may not be per se legal threats, they may fall under the scope of the aforementioned policies and repeated or disruptive usage can result in the user being blocked.

Could be interpreted was "such comments are legal threats...and can result in blocking".

So someone might be blocked when there is no reason. Suggest a minor clarification as follows: While such comments may not be per se legal threats, they only fall under the scope of the aforementioned policies if they become repeated or if the legal threat becomes clear at which time the user can be blocked.

The old version makes it too easy for someone to say "you are disruptive, you are blocked". The new version may result in a response "let's try to work this out. Your messages sounds like a legal threat.  If this is not intended, let me know.  Otherwise, legal threats are subject to block per Wikipedia policy." Spevw (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, I think it's clear that its saying "these aren't direct legal threats, but they're close, and they might violate other policies, and if you keep it up you might get blocked for violating those policies". Your version's use of the words "They only fall under the scope of the aforementioned policies if..." is overly restrictive. Since these policies are subject to admin interpretation (i.e. disruptive editing or civility), your version restricts that interpretation, by requiring that it be either repeated (there are situations where the threat could be not a direct violation of NLT, but a clear violation of incivility, necessitating an immediate block for incivility but not for the threat), or a clear legal threat, which means it's no longer a perceived legal threat, and therefore that section of the policy doesn't apply, the other one does. See what I mean? Your proposed change in wording requires either that other policies be restricted, or a situation where that paragraph itself is irrelevant. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlike other policies, we must be very specific to what a legal threat is just because it deals with laws. Disruptive editing is very vague and can be interpreted to mean almost anything. Sometimes there are suicide threats and others respond to notify officials. So sometimes we threaten back. There are also other examples. What we need to do is define what a legal threat is exactly. It is a threat to sue. Simple as that. It is not a threat to report someone. If it is, then we need to state it. I get the feeling that we are commenting about different things so we may not be in disagreement. Spevw (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Question:
An IP of the previous user Disneysuit, none other than Royce Mathew. He has been giving legal threats (he has surely sent one to Wikimedia Foundation) against me for asking him to abide by policies, concocting false claims against me. He has been blocked, several times, but he won't stop. I don't want to lose my position at Wikipedia as an experienced editor; the only reason this is happening is because he is not willing to accept that he isn't following policies! A little help would be greatly appreciated. The link I gave you for "Royce Mathew" above has the IP address he is using. BlackPearl14 talkies! 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been taken care of on OTRS. Don't worry about losing anything on Wikipedia. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Block should not be automatic
Often, and especially with biographical articles, the subject of the article, after multiple vain attempts to correct what he or she perceives as libelous attacks, may reference a lawsuit or legal counsel. When this subject is a "wikinovice," it isn't always the best route to automatically block. Rather, the editor should be informed about this policy, and given the opportunity to use other channels (WP:ANI, WP:BLPN, or even OTRS) to solve the issue. I've emphasized the block's non-mandatory nature in the opening of the policy (together with a prose and grammar tweak). Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I very much agree. I have long thought insta-blocking people for legal threats is a bad idea, as it will no doubt make the situation worse. Of course, if they persist, they should be blocked, but I don't see any benefit in blocking a new editor, with no knowledge of the policy, who is simply upset about a BLP issue, when they could easily take their issues to correct venues (as Avi says, admin noticeboards) with a correct pointer. Shoot first ask questions later is a bad way to go about things imo. --Ben Pisarski (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Indeed, I think the policy could be clarified even further to make some recommendations to admins about some of these kinds of applications of the policy. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. The blocks are temporary, and they're preventative, and they allow the subject to be talked to in a controlled environment through OTRS, or even through his attorneys. All of which serve to chill them out. What doesn't help is that a person can threaten another editor with a law suit and the threatened person sees nothing done about it, thinks that nobody is going to protect them and quits. It doesn't matter if they are a novice or not. You lose that protection when you start threatening other people. It doesn't matter if it's your first time in Walmart: If you go up there and start threatening the employees, you're going to get kicked out -- no exceptions. Speaking as an editor who has received a legitimate legal threat, seen that editor not get blocked for it, and very nearly permanently quit the project, as well as having seen in great detail the process which follows a block for a legal threat and subsequent communications, I highly recommend that the current procedure continue. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the current language does not actually mandate a block it says you will typically be blocked. It does not say absolutely. And furthermore, if the issue here is seriously to protect newbie editors who have not read the policy (and thus will not see this change and not know anyway), then why change its application to long-term editors who have read the policy. As changed, now we lose the expectation that long-term editors cannot do it either. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (I suppose this opinion mostly considers legal threats in relation to BLP-type articles) I think we should encourage the use of something I like to call "communication" (the term is likely to catch on, so watch out). Specifically, one-on-one or "face-to-face" communication.  First reactions should be "Whoa, you can't do that.  Care to retract that so you don't get shoved out the door?".  This method is likely to lead to much less confusion and a much more sensitive interaction with what are frequently the subjects of a BLPs or someone who really means well. John Reaves 05:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have an email from Jimmy that sets out the original context of NLT, which I think it is acceptable to post here:


 * But what we're talking about here is very different, and it's a kind of thing that has happened before.
 * Someone posts vicious libel about me, a WP:BLP subject who knows little of Wikipedia
 * I remove it because it is libel and mean.
 * It is posted again.
 * I say, hey, knock it off, that's libel. I remove it again.
 * It is posted again.
 * I say, seriously, I am going to sue you if you keep this up.
 * I get blocked! And a mean note is placed on my page.  And, these days, even though I didn't know much about Wikipedia, there's a less than zero chance that I'm going to have unflattering stories written about the incident because the media loves these stories.
 * Rings true? I'd say so. We should draw a distinction between:
 * Established users who know the rules and starte threatening legal action to try to gain an advantage in a dispute (absolutely unacceptable, block until threat withdrawn, if threats made again then it may be banhammer time)
 * People who arrive at Wikipedia to further an external dispute, bringing legal baggage with them (unacceptable, should be blocked but may be amenable to conforming to community norms)
 * Hurt angry people who have been subject of defamatory edits and come here with "Fix this or I sue!" (which should be handled sensitively in the first instance, if only because if it does come to legal action we need to be able to show that we gave the guy a sympathetic hearing and tried to fix the problem).
 * I am certainly not arguing for a relaxation of the prohibition on legal threats, just a change in the way we handle such issues with obvious newbies who are subjects of our articles; in such cases we should in the first instance redact the threat and tell the newbie that legal threats are not on, but that we can help them fix the problem if they would like us to. I think we could create a blp-welcome boilerplate with advice for newbies who are article subjects.  Guy (Help!) 08:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be a 'one-strike-and-your-out' rule, a warning should be required for new editors and recomended for all in a similar manner to the 3RR first. The warning should link here and give contact details for the foundation, it would also make sense to put a time delay on it say 24 hours the warning would be best as a template e.g.


 * If a block is issued specific block template should be used similar to the above. This way sancitons are taken, but the individual gets a fair hearing before they get a "you are blocked" message, or if the do it is explicit & informative. I would also propose that any account (or IP?) responsable for adding the material be warned, and possibly blocked at the same time while the threats are unresolved, as this would come accross as fairer to the person on the reaciveing end, and reduce the risk of the marterial being replaced. --Nate1481 09:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should, of course, create Legal threats noticeboard. John Reaves 11:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My first reaction is that it a good idea, having a seperate notice board would be good in terms of organisation, my concern is it would be viewed less, so might talk longer to resolve. --Nate1481 12:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that was utter sarcasm. We have too many damn noticeboards as it is. John Reaves 12:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Blast these 1D communications! :D My main thought was as every time I post to ANI, I have to uncheck 'watch' or it fills 1/2 my watch list, it would be nice to be able to watch just a thread but that's asking for a complete format change... --Nate1481 12:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support that with a slight modification - don't impose a deadline, rather say something to the effect of "If you wish to continue editing Wikipedia, please retract your legal threat, if you continue editing without retracting it, you will be blocked". Basically, that imposes a deadline of whenever they next edit, rather than some arbitrary time. (I oppose blocking the other party, though - that's open to abuse, all you have to do is threaten someone and they get blocked! They should be judged on their own actions, not on someone else's response to their actions.) --Tango (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * mw:Extension:LiquidThreads. &mdash; Werdna  &bull;  talk  12:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I know it might be heresy on today's Wikipedia, but why don't we just kinda sort things out on a case by case basis? If a BLP subject makes a legal threat, we can talk to them about it. We can say "Well, we don't want to libel you, but we think that, given there's a reliable source, we're being duly diligent. Is there anything in particular that you think is false and actionable?" And then if they persist in being obnoxious about legal threats, sure, block them. But putting people through the rigours of a process for the sake of it isn't going to help. Get cool heads involved, sit down and talk it over.

It's rather amusing that we prohibit legal threats because they escalate conflict, but people want to solve it by putting people through a process that involves lots of blocks and scary threats of blocks – which will escalate the conflict, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid! &mdash; Werdna  &bull;  talk  12:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Case by case is how we are now and could work, but some cases end up in just they way you want to avoid. As it is down to the opinion of the admin who sees it rather than having a defined rule. --Nate1481 12:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My intention with the original edit (changed back by Swat) was not to make a sea change to the policy. Rather, it was to emphasize the approach we sysops need to take when dealing with legal threats. At the risk of oversimplification, there are two classes of legal threats on wiki: those made out of exasperation and those made out of forethought.

The latter needs to be dealt with posthaste as we do now. We do not need our editors using wikipedia as either a source or a support for legal actions. Litigation is a necessity at times, but it is between people and should not involve wikipedia.

The former, however, is what we often see in the WP:BLP area; someone, usually a wikinovice, comes across their bio article, and notices mistakes or worse. First they attempt to change it on their own, and often they get trout-slapped and reverted due to WP:COI. As an aside, COI is an important protection, but it does not prevent article subjects from editing their own articles, but requires extreme care. There is truth to the idea that the subject of the article, while inherently partial, is also the most knowledgeable about him or herself, and we should not throw out the resource of the subject her or himself simply due to their being themselves. Back to NLT, so they find they are reverted, often by some anonymous editor. Understandably, they get upset. The next thing they know, they are played right into a 3RR block. So, first they may have been told they cannot fix their own articles, and even if they can, they get hit with a block. Now they are hopping mad, and do what many people do when they feel their character is being defamed; they threaten legal action.

In my opinion, and I believe it shared by many others, the above should not be met with an NLT block and a "don't let the door hit ya where the good l-rd split ya" message. These people should be met, at least initially, with understanding and compassion for there situation, and directed to appropriate resources (WP:ANI, WP:BLPN, and OTRS come to mind). Educate them into the byzantine workings of wikipedia that we wikiexperts take for granted, but make the New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles look like the express line at the local Waldbaums by comparison.

Don't get me wrong, Swat or anyone else, I know that a good percentage of the people issuing these types of threats eventually get fed up with the process, continue to threaten action against editors and the foundation, and need the NLT block, but this needs to be a last resort, not a first resort. Further, established wikieditors, who know the rules and the ropes, understand these ramifications, and similar to 3RR, if we know that the threat was issued by someone who understands our system, the above does not apply (AGF and suicide pacts, etc.).

Thus, perhaps we do not need to change the wording of the opening, but it would be beneficial, in my opinion, to somehow codify the need for understanding, because, unfortunately, eventually, someone is going to rely on the strict wording of the policy and this is one of the cases where the spirit of the law is more important than the letter. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that the blocks force the discussion to continue in a place that will not have a chilling effect -- i.e. on OTRS. If we start taking away the discretion of the blocking admin to place an immediate block, specifically by mandating a warning, that's a horrible idea, and one that I absolutely will not follow. There may be times where a particular contributor will not merit a block for a legal threat, but those times should be for the administrator reviewing the threat to determine -- NOT for a static policy to determine that we are never allowed to block on the initial legal threat. It's why I'm also against imposing a deadline for retraction. Blocks are preventative. When we block the person, we are enforcing that if they want to continue to edit, they must return to their talk page and retract the edit. As such, we are using the system to force them to address the issue. If we have to sit there and monitor the user, that's far too much of a burden to place on already overworked admins. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  22:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I would advocate removing the discretion to block, I am simply saying that there is a significant difference in character between "you got your edit through but I'll get even" and "ZOMG! Your article said WHAT about me?" Guy (Help!) 23:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy says do not edit. If you trust the user to comply with the policy, there is no need to block. However, this has to be judged on a case-by-case basis; sometimes blocking is potentially more disruptive than doing nothing, while at other times a precaution is wise. Consider the danger to the project; if there is no danger, the policy (like any policy) doesn't need to be applied at all. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(<-)I agree that the option to levy a block immediately needs to remain; however, I think that an immediate block should not be levied automatically in cases where the person threatening action does not understand the wiki process. I think (unsubstantiated by statistical analysis) that there may be a predilection to "block first ask questions later" too often, and sysops need to use common sense here. -- Avi (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone is unfamiliar with Wikipedia processes, the proper action would IMHO be:
 * Delete the legal threat;
 * Explain why;
 * Point them in the right direction to resolve the dispute, or resolve it on the spot if you can. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or,
 * Block
 * Explain it's wrong
 * Wait for a complete, utter and unambiguous withdrawal
 * Unblock
 * Legal threats are wholly, totally and unambiguously an inappropriate way to resolve disputes. They're stupid, they're irrelevant in a world-wide encyclopedia, and they rely on something other than reliable sources to adjust or reflect content.  Legal threats are not small things, and should not be treated lightly.  People should not be encouraged to make them, or even mention then on wikipedia.  If you've a legal action anywhere in your life, just don't mention it.  Simple.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While you are waiting, things will develop. Since the threat is still sitting there, other users will start commenting, and the user you blocked may withdraw, causing the project to lose a potentially good editor, or if they don't, will be stained for life. Meanwhile, the underlying dispute remains unresolved. How exactly does that help the project? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By discouraging legal threats. Wikipedia is never done, bar a meteor strike it'll be here when the block is lifted.  Not to mention it's quite easy and quick to withdraw any legal threat and blocked editors can still peruse pages.  Any editor that's going to work with the project long-term must understand and be willing to abide by its rules.  A simple unblock along with "Oops, I'm sorry I didn't know.  I withdraw my threat, please unblock me so I can strike it through" would be more than adequate (provided the next action was to indeed withdraw the threat).  Editing wikipedia is not a right and the project is probably better off without editors who are unable to grasp that sources and consensus trumps opinion, no matter how strong their opinion may be.  They may be a potentially good editor (but if they don't realize that sources are the ultimate source of dispute resolution, I doubt they are) but they may be a terrible, terrible collaborator, and that we're better off without.  Wikipedia is a community.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 01:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How can it discourage legal threats by users that do not know about this? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 08:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that legal threats can sometimes be used in a way that's not bad for the community. For instance, the BLP issues above. Certainly, we'd rather they didn't make legal threats, but blocking them for it when they see legal threats as their only recourse against Wikipedia having poor information on them is a terrible way to treat an article subject. &mdash; Werdna  &bull;  talk  09:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. What is important, of course, is to make sure that no barriers are erected to speedily blocking people who make legal threats in furtherance of disputes.  There is nothing wrong with saying that any threat will normally result in an immediate block until the threat is withdrawn, and that repeated threats may lead to summary bannination.  That is not, I think, in dispute.  We seriously don't need a process requiring uw-nlt1 through uw-nlt4 before blocking, the wikilawyers would have a field day.  The issue that needs to be addressed is (a) article subjects who (b) are not active members of the community and who (c) are addressing an actual issue with the article.  If these three conditions are met, then we should redact the threat and counsel the user. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Guido - how does anyone know not to indulge in OR, spamming or BLP violations? They don't.  Instead, when an experienced editor sees an issue, they cite the policy and take action.  There are a lot of rules on wikipedia, and people have to learn them.  In many cases, learning invovles making mistakes.  Provided the editor in question is willing to remove the legal threat as soon as they are aware, no real damage has been done.  But litigiously-minded wannabe editors may be disuaded from contributing.  Which is a good thing.
 * Werdna (BTW, love the bot) - p'raps I need to read the discussion more closely, but I would expect BLP specifically is covered by this section. Anyone who is going to block is going to know about NLT, and have access to a) a wealth of experience and b) other editors and noticeboards.  The block protects wikipedia, and really isn't that inconvenient.  Like Swat says, it controls things.  Emphasis should perhaps be placed on the blocking admin's obligation to explain things patiently and clearly.  Not easy if you're a trigger-happy admin with a temper, like I would be, but there's plenty of calm, patient admins who do a wonderful job of being reasonable about things.  Perhaps an option would be listing those willing to explain NLT as key contacts or good choices as admins to block.   Ultimately, we've got WP:UCS and anyone who becomes, and stays an admin should be able to manage.  In most cases I think it's pretty clear when a legal threat is pointy, a mis-understanding, or a BLP problem.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 12:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My initial thoughts were focused on BLPs where the subject has been attacked and is a new user, as that was the issue that brought me here and the template thought was probalby too far, for established users, a block with 'You should know better' is fair. What needs spesifying is what situations don't come under the umbrealla of typically. In my view any threat by a new user linked to a BLP fall under this at 1st, if threats continue after the explinaiton has been make a block is fair, but blocking somone for being angry they have been insulted etc, reflect badly on wikipedia. --Nate1481 12:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you that it needs specifying. Admin discretion goes a long way. Admins are not stupid (in most cases) and will know when it is appropriate to use their discretion in how they address a legal threat. Not every single exception needs to be codified into policy. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  20:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifying some things isn't a bar on discretion, it's just helpful guidelines rather than leaving the assumption as Block 1st revise. In the recent incident on Tim Boetsch for example, discretion should have been used, as it was clear case of a removal of marterial the breache WP:BLP by a new editor who apeared to be the subject of the article. Cases like this are the ones where a clear explination is needed alongside (or idealy before) a block, Where as this policy wasn't even linked as an explination. --Nate1481 09:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think 'blocking for legal threats' ought to be discontinued entirely. The rare cases where someone is serious about it and refuses to back down and discuss things calmly could easily be handled under standard civility policy. Every single invocation of NLT which I have ever seen has been a 'gotcha' situation to block someone who didn't know the rules... sometimes for merely alluding to the law with no actual threat... several times 'indefinitely until they agreed to drop the threat'... and usually when there clearly isn't any chance of any lawyer taking the 'case' or any court entertaining it. It's a bad policy. No, we don't want people running around threatening to sue each other... because it creates a hostile environment. That's what we have a civility policy for. Giving special status to 'legal threats' just increases the likelihood of overzealous application (to the point that overzealous application is the de facto standard), mis-application, and outright abuse. Most of the time this hits really angry people who aren't likely to be positive contributors anyway... the absolute worst case with this policy is anyone who has actual grounds to sue. E.G. Someone puts up a message to inform us we are infringing on their copyright and that they will have to sue if we don't remove the offending material. They get blocked. They sue. Or we could have just talked to them about it. --CBD 07:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the above analysis pretty convincing. Certainly anything we need from this policy could be merged into Civility.--Kotniski (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. Civility also deals with other types of threats, and I see no essential difference (see below). IMHO, the existence of this policy has itself caused more disruption than the actual threats. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, none of the three of you above ever get to see what happens behind the scenes for the foundation when these threats are continued. CBD's analysis is based off of a flawed perception of what "every single invocation of NLT" is, since he is only seeing half of the process (assuming he knows of every legal threat ever made on Wikipedia). From personal experience both as the subject of a threat, and as a handler of tickets in the legal queue, I think that the civility policy is irrelevant to the legal threats concept. A legal threat can be perfectly civil, certainly more civil than conduct we allow from certain long-standing users, and yet still merit an immediate block. It's fallacious to think that blocking someone means that we don't talk to them. In fact, we do -- we get dozens of emails a day to OTRS from people saying they have a "legal concern" or they're going to "contact their attorneys". The point of blocking the user is to force them to channel their communications through a specific subset of users who are able to address their points, rather than allow them to rail against any user they come across and perhaps drive away other contributors. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  14:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know what happens behind the scenes, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No you don't. You know a single situation. Not day after day of handling legal threats on OTRS. 20:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But blocking doesn't have that specific effect; it prevents the person from contributing to WP, which they might be able to do perfectly civilly and to the encyclopedia's advantage. Why not hold back with the block until there is evidence that he really is "railing against" and "driving away" users, or otherwise behaving disruptively? And if someone is doing that, then surely he should be blocked anyway, regardless of whether the cause is a legal one. So NLT is not really needed. --Kotniski (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because that's not how it works. The threat itself drives away users, because it creates FUD in their minds as to whether the threat will be carried out. A person making these kinds of threats is not communicating in a manner conducive to the encyclopedia: regardless of whether they have OTHER good edits, we should block them as a preventative measure to prevent further harm, and again, to focus their threats down the OTRS path. Wikipedia won't die if a person making threats is unable to make constructive edits for a bit. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  20:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Guido, in this regard Swat is completely correct. As an OTRS volunteer, I can say that there are many times whe the ability to block threats is necessary. My point starting this section was specific to the newbie BLP issuer of a threat. Unfortunately, as often as not, threats are issued on wiki or via e-mail by sophisticated users, and the wikimedia projects need to be protected. -- Avi (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know there are, but you don't need a separate policy for it if that appears to get misinterpreted a lot. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an obvious oxymoron that a legal threat could be simultaneously "perfectly civil" and 'drive away users by creating FUD'. A calm approach to legal threats; considering whether the 'target' is at all alarmed, directing the complainant towards proper avenues for legal discussion, et cetera would be a significant boon to the project. Some people like blocks and snubs instead. Oh well. Just another thing which isn't handled as well as it could be. We'll survive. --CBD 15:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's no oxymoron. I can very civilly say "I am filing a complaint against you in U.S. District Court in Trenton New Jersey because of your edits to my article" and I'll have been perfectly civil, yet I'm creating fear in the the minds of users that they're going to be sued, uncertainty as to what they did to cause it, and doubt that they can continue to edit without being sued. Treating blocks as a snub, rather than a focusing technique certainly doesn't help the project either. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  22:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have just been a witness to a user being blocked for making a legal threat for the sake of it. The user was frustrated about an article about himself and posted threatened to take legal action against Wikipedia, I warned him that this is a ground for blocking and directed him to the proper channels, he stopped making the threats and participated in the deletion debate - yet, he was blocked. At the same time as the article was deleted. The block for legal threats needs to be imposed with common sense and not automatically. Serious threats need to be met with a block with prejudice; threats made out of frustration need a calm response and a warning that such conduct is not acceptable, not a "gotcha" block. (There's enough time for a block if the user persists.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What about non-legal threats?
This page is about legal threats, but what about non-legal threats like: AFAIK there is currently no guideline or policy for such cases, although this may be hidden in more general policies. Should they be treated the same way as legal threats? And if so, should this page be renamed to deal with all threats? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * threatening with incident reports and other internal procedures to win a content discussion;
 * threatening people with bodily harm, etc.
 * See TOV for threats of violence (basically report to ANI, falls under civility), and the other is usually covered by civility and WP:DR. Verbal   chat  10:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Most people familiar with wikipedia know the difference between a spurious use of a RFC and a real problem. That's why there's policies and guidelines that inform when these procedures are to be adopted, such as "must have tried to resolve previously", "must be endorsed by at least x many other editors".  If a RFC is used spuriously, then the process to allow for rebuttals by the RFC-ed person can quickly turn the RFC around and affect the person who called the spurious RFC.  Arbitration has a similar approach, where the arbitrators will decide on the actions of both parties, not just the one who called arbitration.  They shouldn't be treated as legal threats because they are part of wiki's on-site dispute resolution processes (not violence, obviously) and legal threats are outside of wikipedia (i.e. part of real-world legal systems).  Content and topic bans as well as blocking are the tools available to admins to protect users and wikipedia from spurious use of dispute resolution or violence, as well as WP:UCS. WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 11:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was talking about threats, not the (normal) use of such procedures. For instance, you have threatened me with a request for a topic ban in an attempt to let me drop the content dispute that you are losing. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then stay civil and welcome it. Offer dispute resolution. Wikipedia isn't a battleground; it isn't about winning or losing. Verbal   chat  18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about what to do when users do use it as a battleground, but use non-legal rather than legal threats. IMHO, there is no essential difference. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge difference. You can ignore "Ill tell on you using wp forums" as that is the proper process. Verbal  chat  18:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You can ignore legal threats as well, or any threat. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A threat involving some off wiki action is probably actionable, and is nearly always uncivil. Taking action on wiki is the normal course of dispute resolution, and if it is used as a threat then this is also uncivil and actionable under the civility policy - but only if it is done in an uncivil way. If taking to ANI or 3O is brought up because you can't agree, then that is the normal course. There is a difference between warning of taking a topic to dispute resolution and threatening it (which is uncivil). Threatening (which includes warning) of off wiki action, when not done in the appropriate forum, is uncivil. There is a huge, and obvious, difference. For starters, one only has an impact on your wikipedia account - and will have no effect if you have acted properly. The other will have real effects on your real life and is detrimental to the project. Yours, Verbal   chat  21:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agee with all that you've said, except that it makes a huge difference. The content of an article on the www can have a serious impact on one's life, and this can equally be influenced by wiki threats as by legal threats. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a waste of time. Guido will not get any support for his changes, and will not be swayed by arguments. So don't waste your time.  Let the discussion die but monitor the main page in case of a WP:POINT edit to the page.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you doing here, then, disrupting a perfectly good and friendly conversation? Are you stalking me now? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sue?
What if I want to sue wikipedia. It was my idea first. They done goned and stoled it from me! Hip2BSquare (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems this policy no longer applies
See here. Comments? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ...because it's not a legal threat, as just about everyone has been telling you. --Deskana (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Extend this policy to include quasi-legal, or extra-legal threats
Proposal, extend WP:NLT to cover threats that whilst not directly involving law enforcment officals or the courts, may involve an 'offical' hearing or an offical body intervening, such as for example threats to:
 * report a specfic article or image to a 'filtering'/blacklisting organisation
 * get a contributor barred from working with particular groups.
 * get a contributor fired or suspended from employment.
 * get a contributor investigated by their employers, professional body or trade union..

NLT should also be extended or a new guideline drafted to cover the situation of contributors making allegations about another contributor being involved in criminal activity. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unnecessary. Your first one is not Wikipedia's concern. It could be blacklisted, but we still host it. No harm done to us. Your second, third, and fourth, all are covered by harassment (which in fact offers a potentially greater penalty than NLT because harassers are usually banned, not just blocked.) &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  16:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt response. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Somewhat off topic, but is this Shakespearefan 00? Or is this an imposter account? &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  18:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sfan00_IMG is an alternate account of User:ShakespeareFan00 Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Clarification
To clarify the scope of the policy, I intend to edit the "What is not a Legal Threat" section by inserting the following:


 * The policy only covers disputes about present or potential future content of Wikipedia. It does not cover threats to Wikipedia users about non-Wikipedia matters.  Moreover, not every dispute about behavior on Wikpedia is a dispute about Wikipedia.  For example, if A posts B's credit card number on Wikipedia in violation of a non-disclosure agreement, then B can sue A for damages and still edit Wikipedia because the legal dispute is about the non-disclosure agreement and not about what Wikipedia will contain.

I am posting it here first to find out if this represents the community consensus. As it stands, the article is ambiguous about what legal threats are covered. However, after reading the discussion, I saw that the examples of legal threats are all about present or potential future content of Wikpedia, and I am convinced that this is the community's intent. This is confirmed by the article's suggestion to use Wikipedia dispute resolution instead of lawsuits.

An alternative is to read the policy broadly to include all lawsuits about past behavior on Wikipedia. However, this is unreasonable as the credit card number example shows. Such a broad reading will not offer significant additional protection for Wikipedia editors. In fact, it will do quite the contrary. In the credit card number example, if Wikipedia editing is important to B, then A can act unlawfully with impunity since B cannot file a lawsuit out of fear of being blocked for years while the case is resolved and A's appeals are exhausted. That cannot be the policy of Wikipedia.

Dmytro (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is getting too wikilawyerish and unnecessary. Especially when looking at your earlier attempt to add this to the policy. See this edit. Garion96 (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See Oversight.  Jd 027  (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What about legal action?
Picture this hypothetical: An editor writes a painstakingly thorough and well-researched article on an obscure species of moth, or the like, and a particularly destructive vandal were to decide to have some fun attacking that article. The vandal, for whatever reason, fixates on the article and begins attacking it on a regular basis, inserting gibberish, vulgarity, moving the page, etc., using a variety of sleeper accounts set up just to ply this vandalism. When the article finally gets protected, the vandal moves on to other related articles using the same motif - never does anything constructive (except maybe a few minor edits for show before launching into an attack). Now, suppose our decent hardworking editor, instead of making "legal threats" against said vandal, were to march down to the nearest courthouse and file a John-Doe complaint on the theory that a banned vandal is a trespasser when he returns to vandalize more. Would the taking of legal action, as opposed to mere threats, still constitute an offense against policy? bd2412 T 10:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of answers: no one is prohibiting you from taking legal action, just don't threaten it. Also, the vandal could not be a trespasser because the article is not John Doe's property: it has been released to the public under the terms of GFDL. In addition, read the note at the bottom of the editing page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." It's the community's responsibility to handle vandalism and the like, not just the editor's, and certainly not the court's.  Jd 027  (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am part of the community, however - and if a particular vandal has been banned (meaning he no longer has the right to "edit mercilessly") and yet is persistent and creates a disproportionate amount of work through his prohibited actions, why not bring the equivalent of a shareholder derivative suit against the vandal on behalf of the project? The deeper problem is, even if others in the community would be supportive of seeking legal relief against a particular vandal, even discussing the possibility could be perceived as an impermissible "legal threat". In other words, there is a catch-22, that perhaps a solution can not be implemented without the support of the community, but at the same time it is against the rules to try to rally the support of the community for exactly that solution. bd2412  T 20:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Bad publicity. Very bad publicity. 2. No one that I know (including me) actually knows what a shareholder derivative suit is. 3. If they're banned, they're probably blocked. 4. Yes, a solution can be implemented with violating WP:NLT, but not the threatening to sue the vandal kind. 5. Too complicated, no one really cares. 6. If they're outside the United States, since the Foundation is in the U.S., that's a huge mess. 7. Too much money to chase after a vandal. So, yes, I suppose you could try, and even if the consensus was that you were within bounds of WP:NLT or WP:IAR, theoretically, in practice, no one would really care enough to pursue legal action.  Jd 027  (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the court would be likely to side against Wikipedia, because they were negligent (in a more legal sense, not a wiki sense) in opening up the pages to anyone: if they wanted only constructive comments, then all edits should be reviewed, etc.  Jd 027  (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll respond point by point.
 * Bad publicity? For suing, for example, a vandal whose entire contribution to Wikipedia is to use sockpuppets to move articles to titles including "tits and assholes"? I doubt the public would take that as a negative, and indeed it might counteract the widespread belief that Wikipedia is unreliable due to a lack of policing.
 * A shareholder derivative suit is a suit brought by a shareholder in a company which compels the company to take some action (in this case, the action of suing the vandal directly). Wikipedia does not have public shareholders, but it certainly has stakeholders.
 * Blocking has proved ineffective against the vandals I have in mind, as they operate with a seemingly infinite supply of sleeper sockpuppets.
 * We should have the right to discuss suing a particular vandal without it falling into the realm of WP:NLT, if the discussion is not directed at the vandal.
 * Not too complicated for an intellectual property attorney; and I doubt I'm the only one who cares.
 * We can find out whether the vandalism in question is originating outside the U.S. Given the particular predilections of the vandals I have in mind, it is highly doubtful they are in another country.
 * The cost of filing a lawsuit in your typical United States District Court is $300. A single case can be filed against multiple "John Doe" defendants who engage in the same pattern of vandalism. The legal work will be done for free, by myself and perhaps by some fellow Wikipedian practicing attorneys (although this is frankly a case that could be handled by a single attorney)
 * Trespassing is trespassing - a court would not consider you negligent for not also putting a fence up around your property, if you have a "no trespassing" sign. A ban on a vandal is the equivalent of that sign, and is as much as Wikipedia is reasonably able to do to thwart vandals while remaining a free, open source encyclopedia. There is, in fact, comparable legal precedent, wherein email providers have sued spammers for "trespassing" on their servers through the sending of email that violates the terms of use.
 * Cheers! bd2412  T 17:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you really feel that strongly about it, go ahead then. I mean, I wouldn't be willing to spend $300 on it, but if you are, go ahead. I doubt Wikipedia has a lack of policing, though. As to your original concern, I doubt it would fall under the realm of NLT, because it's not disrupting the encyclopedia, I suppose it would be helping. IAR would be applicable in this situation. I wouldn't suggest making any comments to anyone in particular on the site, though, because it's unnecessary, and vandals are probably unconcerned with checking their talk pages. This [going to court] is not something I've ever thought of though, but if you won, it might a good point, and surely an even better news story. Regards,  Jd 027  (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose I just might. bd2412  T 18:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The other issue with your hypothetical, that kind of moots it, is that you couldn't sue in most countries, including the US, UK, Aus, et cet. As has been said previously, you don't own the article, and therefore even if the accessing of the article and the malicious activity constituted an offense against wikipedia, you don't have the standing to sue because it was not your right or property that was damaged.  Despite the fact that you do own your submissions, via copyright, the fact that they are all licensed for pretty much any use, would pretty much preclude any suit on that ground anyways.  I suppose you could try to find some situation which isn't covered under the license and then sue for copyright infringment or something, but if they didn't reproduce your work off site, it would be hard to see how that would be available either.  I think you'd be limited to suing for them making you feel bad, which probably wouldn't cut it in most areas.  Either way, it doesn't seem the policy has anything to do with lawsuits, only the threats, which are pretty much always empty and ignorant spiels by self-important people trying to dominate others.  Regards.--Δζ (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking an editor on-wiki for an off-wiki legal threat
Doing this would seem to be a good idea--otherwise, an aggressive user could wreak havoc on the creation of the site during pending or threatened action. The only discussion I've seen along these lines is Wikipedia_talk:No_legal_threats/Archive_2, but I think I disagree with this extremely brief conversation. If User:A threatens User:B with action or threat of action on-wiki, A is blocked indefinitely until rescinding. This does nothing of course, beyond removing their editing here--even if they rescind on-wiki it's certainly not binding if they actually sue. However, if A threatens or serves B, we let A continue to edit during the process? It seems nonsensical. I seem to recall at least one instance of someone being blocked while a threat of a case or an actual case was running entirely off-wiki. Why don't we include this sort of thing explicitly in NLT? You issue a threat, or go through with one, related to WP, you should be removed from WP for the duration.

Thoughts? rootology ( C )( T ) 19:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I came here to see whether this policy could be changed to make it less draconian. We currently seem to have a situation where, if A says to B, "I think what you wrote defames me," A can be blocked (even if he is right), but B is not automatically blocked, even if he is indeed defaming A.


 * I find this wrong-headed on a number of levels. First, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia, if the Foundation is right that it is protected as a service provider. The issue is between A and B. Secondly, people have to be allowed to defend themselves; natural justice demands it. There's more, but I'll leave it at those two for now.


 * I could support the view that making legal threats is a form of incivility, and should be subject to warnings or blocks under that policy, but the rigid "make a legal threat and you're blocked until you withdraw it," strikes me as harsh, prone to misuse and misunderstanding, and inherently unjust. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts of a lawyer about legal actions vs threats
As a practicing attorney, my first thought was that this policy was misguided when it came to actual legal actions (as opposed to threats). It seemed unfair to me to bar a person who has been actually and improperly injured by another user merely because they have filed a lawsuit to terminate or compensate the injury. It's not all that easy or inexpensive to file a lawsuit willy-nilly and a person who has gone to the expense and trouble of doing so over the kind of dispute that will arise here will usually have some real justification for doing so. Most legal systems now have procedures in place to punish litigants and lawyers who file totally baseless lawsuits. Indeed, in many cases the effect of the policy will be to punish the innocent. But... (1) Baseless and frivolous lawsuits do still get filed (though not as often as popular opinion might suggest). (2) It is wise for Wikipedia not to align itself with one litigant or the other (with no "exception for the most clear cut of cases," since the dividing line between those which are clear cut and those which are not clear cut can be wide, fuzzy, and gray). The wisdom should arise, however, from neutrality and avoidance of public conflict, not from fear of becoming a party in the litigation. And (3) my main point: Lawsuits are a form of self-defense and much is to be learned from the difference of the role of self-defense in, on the one hand, the legal treatment of the crimes of fighting in public and assault and, on the other, its roll in the schoolyard treatment of those same "crimes." Law: In most US jurisdictions, if A begins hitting B with no legal justification (thus committing an assault), B will usually have the legal right of self-defense to (without either committing a battery or committing the crime of fighting in public) hit A back until A's attack on B stops or until (depending on the jurisdiction) B can run away. If B continues to hit A after the appropriate point has been reached, however, B will lose the right of self-defense and both A and B can be charged with committing a battery on the other and/or if A and B willingly continue the fight both may be charged with fighting in public without either being able to claim self-defense. (Note: WP:NOLEGAL applies to the foregoing analysis and, I individually and personally invoke it as well.) Schoolyard: On most schoolyards, however, the rules enforced by school authorities (in practice, at least) are much different: if A begins hitting B, B's only legitimate response is to run away and report the assault. If B hits A back, and the school finds out about it, both A and B are almost certainly going to be punished for fighting. If B hits back but claims that B was acting in self-defense, that claim is usually going to fall on deaf ears even if it is absolutely and unmistakeably true. Both the legal policy and the schoolyard policy are proper and non-contradictory: The legal policy acknowledges the fact that even though public order is both needed and highly desirable in society that even in the best, most peaceful societies innocents will sometimes be attacked without justification or provocation, that police cannot be everywhere all the time, and that if there was no legal right of self defense that a lot of folks would end up seriously injured or dead before they could report the assault; the right of self-defense thus both allows people to protect themselves and also deters assaults. The schoolyard policy focuses on the need for order at school, and is made in the expectation that children at school will be under adult supervision virtually all of the time, that few child-on-child assaults are of the type that will result in serious bodily injury or death, and that in most cases an adult will intervene before serious bodily injury or death can occur. It is also made in the belief that the knowledge that everyone involved in a fight at school will be punished will deter most fights at school, and finally it recognizes the fact that the schools, unlike the police and courts, are ill-suited for fact-finding adjudications and, indeed, have a far more important demand on their time, education, than being a tribunal. Both systems sometimes do or allow injustice, but both also have their desired effect far, far more often. I would suggest to you that the interests of Wikipedia resemble those of the schoolyard far more than they do those of the legal system. The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate, not to maintain public or internal order though it needs internal order and discipline in order to fulfill that purpose, a good system is in place for assaulted persons to report errant behavior, administrators are readily available and have sufficient authority to maintain order before any serious harm is done, and serious bodily injury or death, while possible, is not likely to occur over a dispute. Under those circumstances, discouraging assaults in the form of actual or threatened legal action by barring both participants makes the most sense.TransporterMan (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Chilling Effects (group)
Do we currently submit reports to http://www.chillingeffects.org/ ? -- &oelig; &trade; 08:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Libel vs. Defamation
During a random train of Wiki pages, I happened to be reading this one and noticed that in the What is not a legal threat section, the link for "Wikipedia's policy on defamation" points to the policy on Libel. Later in that same sentence, "libelous material" points to Defamation. This seems like it was probably intended, since the first is clearly a policy, where the second is a standard article, but it does seem rather confusing. I'm just wondering if anything should (can?) be done about it to make it less confusing for readers/editors. It's obviously not a huge deal, but it could possibly spark an inadvertent "correction" at some point. --RobinHood70 (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat?
Suppose editor A states to editor B: "If you cannot cite believable evidence that Mr. C. is a civil law violator, then that is a libelous defamation. In theory, you could face a jury in a courtroom." Is this a legal threat? In my opinion this statement could only be interpreted as a threat if editor A is in a position to initiate legal action against editor B, which (assuming editor A is not Mr. C.) is not the case, as only the injured party can do so.

I'm asking because an editor recently got indef-blocked over precisely such a statement; see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560 and Milomedes' block log. --Lambiam 15:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Seems pretty clear to not be a threat. What was threatened? Nothing, one person just gave his opinion as to the merits of a particular claim in a hypothetical situation (i.e. where no evidence is found to support the defamatory statemetn). He did not threaten legal action, meerly said that in a hypothetical situation such a claim could constitute an actionable claim. Additionally, this was exactly what the article mentions as not a legal threat, someone giving there opinion about an issue. The whole thing is stupid anyways as in your situation the editior couldn't have threatened as he had no standing to sue for the alleged defamation of a third person. So it both is explicitly excluded, not within the policy anyways, and impossible to be a coherent threat anyways. I mean seriously, are we to be banned everytime we discuss a legal issue regarding an article? "Hey, I think that example you gave about the DMCA isn't allowed by the section you cite, actually, that would be an abuse of process". OOps, editor banned. "Hey, I think we should remove this image as it has no fair use rational and thus may be a copyright violation". Oops, banned again. Stupid.--Δζ (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving one section
We're having an involved discussion over at WT:POLICY. Some policy pages seem to change a lot, some don't, and this is one of the ones that doesn't. There have been no significant changes to the text in 2008 or 2009 except the addition of a new section, WP:NLT. Arguably, the other stuff on this page is not only stuff that hasn't changed, but probably shouldn't; OTOH, policy on "how to behave" changes all the time at WP:Civility and WP:Harassment. Would anyone object if we move most of that section to WP:Harassment, leaving a summary sentence or two and a link to that page? WP:Harassment already links to this page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Category discussion
This page might get a new policy category; the discussion is at WP:VPP. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:DOLT and BLP subjects
I would like us to think about getting some of the sentiments expressed in the WP:DOLT essay into this policy:

The [No Legal Threats] policy is a good policy, overall, but there is a very unfortunate sequence of events that happens far too often. A BLP attack victim sees something horrible in Wikipedia, and I think we can all acknowledge that they have no moral responsibility to become Wikipedians to fix it. Some of them react in ways that we, as Wikipedians who favor reasoned discourse over threats, find inappropriate. Sure, and why not? They are being unfairly attacked and they are hurt and angry and they have no idea what our rules are. That's not their fault. Banning them on the spot for a legal threat is not a very helpful response, usually.

There was some interesting discussion about this last year, above under, but I can't see that it led to any changes.

Perhaps we should make some allowances for BLP subjects who are justifiedly aggrieved. Some of our BLPs are rubbish, and we know it. Blocking exasperated BLP subjects for mentioning the word "attorney" under this policy seems like adding insult to injury. There is a potential that sooner or later, if we don't develop a more intelligent way of handling such situations, this thing will hurt this project. -- JN 466  10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. In any case I don't think blocks should ever be "automatic" - they should serve a clear purpose that can't be realistically achieved by other means (like in this case asking the person to withdraw the threat and undertaking not to make any more).--Kotniski (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We presently have the wording, "If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-enwikimedia.org." How about expanding that bit and adding some steps for admins to follow:
 * How to deal with complaints from BLP subjects
 * Remember that subjects of Wikipedia biographies may be unaware of this policy. If an editor has inserted poorly sourced or unsourced negative information in a biography, and a novice editor who seems to be the subject or someone close to them has made what might be construed as a legal threat on a Wikipedia talk page, do not ban them outright. Instead, remove the threat from the talk page and advise the editor on their user talk page that the proper channel for discussing legal steps is the information team at info-enwikimedia.org.
 * Assure the editor that in the meantime you and your colleagues will do everything in your power to make the article compliant with WP:BLP policy, which is designed to protect biography subjects' rights, and that you will consider their views in this. Check the article and immediately remove any information that contravenes the letter and spirit of WP:BLP.
 * If you have found poorly sourced information, make sure you apologise to the subject on behalf of the project. Watchlist the article to prevent reinsertion of the problematic information. If necessary, initiate dispute resolution.
 * Something along these lines would be appropriate. -- JN 466  11:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Link to the ANI discussion from which the above quote by Jimbo is taken: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive474) -- JN 466  12:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly support that addition.--Kotniski (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While I understand what you're trying to do, I really don't like the way this is worded. We don't want to create a situation where people assume that they can force their POV by making a legal threat.  That's actually part of what NLT is trying to avoid.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We could make clear that if the article content appears to be in order and reliably sourced, the admin should start dispute resolution, rather than changing anything. Anything can potentially be gamed; but our actual bad BLPs and how to limit the damage in those cases where Wikipedia editors really are at fault represent the more prominent problem.
 * I welcome suggestions on how to improve this. -- JN 466  00:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Should police reports be explicitly excluded? (Larry Sanger)
See, and some current discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Apparently Larry Sanger claimed that some images on Wikipedia were some sort of "virtual child pornography" (which is invalid, as the Supreme Court struck that down). It might just be a joke, but now someone is saying he ought to be banned for making "legal threats". I think it's pretty clear that this policy only covers litigation (i.e. legal action initiated by an individual at his personal discretion, which can be avoided through arbitration). But in order not to give Wikiphobes any ammunition, perhaps we should make it clear that


 * "This policy applies only to legal action that you initiate by filing a lawsuit. Reporting child pornography or other content you believe to be illegal is not considered a legal threat or a legal action."

(Personally I am not convinced that laws against child pornography are even productive, as they create a black market, but the point we want to make is, Wikipedia isn't Stop Snitchin'. Freedom of speech is for everyone, even people who don't believe in it fanatically.) Wnt (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the difference between taking someone to court and setting the police onto them - they both sound like inappropriate actions for within a cooperative project. --Kotniski (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is that a lawsuit can be filed or not as a matter of personal choice; whereas if something is illegal it's illegal and if it's not it's not. What you're suggesting is that we put ourselves in exactly the same position as the Catholic churches that covered up the doings of pedophile priests - i.e. paying out huge liability settlements from donor funds that were intended for a nobler cause.  If you say you don't see a difference I think this is a strong argument that the policy does need to be changed to make it absolutely clear. Wnt (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like instruction creep. It's also inaccurate, the policy applies also to threats to legal actions that you don't necessarily initiate. – xeno talk 18:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The policy says, A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat". Who would think from that that a polite, coherent complaint about child pornography would be prohibited?  If you try to make the policy otherwise (a) it will have no positive effect, because those complaining won't care, and (b) it will open up a whole can of worms with names like "obstruction of justice", "impeding an investigation", "witness tampering", "corrupt enterprise", and so on, and you'll be lucky if you don't see some prosecutor posing for a photo standing on a flatbed truck full of all Wikimedia's servers.  You'll send Wikipedia from bulletproof to helpless faster than the Sardinian Knight meeting the can opener. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hang on, the "polite coherent complaint" in case of copyright infringement or attacks means a complaint made on-wiki or to the Foundation, not to a court, right? I presume a polite coherent complaint about child pornography made to the Foundation would never be regarded as a legal threat. But aren't we talking now about polite coherent complaints made to the law-enforcement agencies? Or have I misunderstood?--Kotniski (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the distinction. I mean, if you go on the Village Pump and post something, there's probably a cop somewhere watching it anyway.  Note that a complaint to the police doesn't mean a complaint to a court, unless they decide on their own that a crime was committed, file charges, and call you as a witness. Wnt (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But it has the same significance in terms of turning your back on WP's dispute-resolution mechanisms and causing real-life trouble for other members of the community you aspire to be part of.--Kotniski (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but WP can't change whether something is a crime or not - even if we'd like to. If Larry Sanger were actually right about a cartoon being child pornography, then all we could do about it is "destroy evidence" and "obstruct the investigation" - we couldn't actually solve the problem with our little discussion pages.  By contrast, with litigation, all you have to do is convince someone not to sue you, and the problem is solved, even if infringement occurred that might have exposed you to liability. Wnt (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Rethink?

 * I'm suing my neighbour over his drains. If he edits Wikipedia do I have to stop editing?
 * Someone posts illegal content, I am allowed to tell them it is illegal if it is breaking copyright but not if
 * It is obscene by Florida community standards
 * Is crying fire in a crowded theatre
 * Is a banned munition
 * Is libellous
 * Breaks the Patriot Act
 * Is inciting xxxx hatred
 * Is breaking a court order
 * Discusses the Illuminati

So suggestion is:


 * 1) Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia
 * 2) Do not conduct off-Wikipedia disputes on Wikipedia
 * 3) Do not make legal threats about Wikipedia off Wikipedia
 * 4) If you draw someone's attention to possibly illegal content, it should be made clear that this is to explain why it should not be on Wikipedia, not as a plank towards legal action. (Could be worded better)

and the consequences would be

1. Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia 2. Do not conduct off-Wikipedia disputes on Wikipedia 3. Do not make legal threats about Wikipedia off Wikipedia 4. If you draw someone's attention to possibly illegal content, it should be made clear that this is to explain why it should not be on Wikipedia, not as a plank towards legal action.
 * You may be warned, blocked or banned for this behaviour.
 * You may be warned, blocked or banned for this behaviour.
 * You may be warned, blocked or banned for this behaviour.
 * You may be warned, blocked or banned for this behaviour.

The only rider I would add to the above, is that in the warnings, blocks and bans, are not necessarily censure (particularly in case 3).


 * Rich Farmbrough, 10:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC).


 * Great idea, Rich. I agree that a rethink is needed.  We could generally use a description of what is a legal threat -- at least a partial list of sufficient conditions for a threat.

From an older discussion above about how to define a threat:


 * ''A legal threat is a written intention on wikipedia.org to file a lawsuit against another Wikipedia user or Wikipedia Foundation alleging unlawful conduct related to written contents in the wikipedia.org website. It excludes non-judicial actions including, but not limited to, reporting alleged misconduct to a school principal or librarian or threats which are withdrawn, and reporting incidents to the police.
 * ''A legal threat is not informing an individual of the law. In the event of ambiguity, clarification from the person issuing the alleged legal threat is required as well as notification of the NLT rule.


 * An example to clarify: is "You've libelled that other guy and he could sue you if he wanted." a threat? How about "That sounds like libel, and if you don't provide evidence for it you could have your pseudonymity stripped and could be charged in a California court with up to $$$$ in damages"?  Even if you are not the injured party, this line of discussion can be rather threatening. – SJ +  04:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Restraining order = Block
Everyone who has ever hired a lawyer just loves them. Personally, I have had 126 of them. (If they each did just one hour of work... you do the math.) Wikilawyers are equally beloved. If I threaten to sue all wikilawyers in wikicourt for a restraining order, will I be blocked? PPdd (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Free Speech Violations
Ironically, this policy violated freedom of speech since I should be able to say I can sue if I want to sue. Not that I'm threatening to sue, but I'm just saying someone could sue on free speech grounds since they can't threaten to sue. Which seems weird, but it's true. Trust me, my friends. I knwo. Cowback23451 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have no right to freedom of speech here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor do you legally have freedom of speech in accordance with United States law. Wikipedia is a private entity and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not extend to private companies.--WaltCip (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Trust me, my friends. I knwo" -- You just had to put that pompous, self-assured statement at the end and make yourself look like an idiot didn't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.158.160 (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's funny, that was the first thing I thought when I first saw this page. Yeah, I could totally see some guy doing this. --WikiDonn (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Offwiki report to ADL?
(This was originally posted to OTRS noticeboard where it was suggested that I ask at Administrators' noticeboard and/or Wikipedia talk:No legal threats. I suggest that discussion be centralized at AN.)

I honestly don't know whether there is anything wrong with the following, so I am just going to put it out there and let someone else decide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joseph_A._Spadaro&diff=prev&oldid=498070661

(Also see User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro)

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This issue is now at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive237. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

How reporting to the police should fall under NLT
It was a recent Arbcom motion that brings me to bring this up, but it seems to me that threats of contacting the police, along with actually doing so and informing someone on-wiki about it should quite clearly fall under NLT. Half the point, if not the whole point of this policy, as stated in the rationale, is to stop the chilling effects of doing as such. Utilizing the police against another user because of something they said on-wiki very clearly falls under such a thing, so it really should be added to this policy. If you're going to conduct these things, conduct them off-wiki. Silver seren C 05:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The matter requires judgment. Of course, in general, editors should be blocked if they start talking about contacting some external authority like the police as a means of imposing their view in a disagreement. However, the case in question is totally different. An IP with a track record of liking to discuss quirky sexual behavior managed to lure some misguided editors into a discussion on the virtues of pedophilia. A sensible editor pointed out that the discussion was unwise (they actually were a little stronger than that). When the discussion continued blithely on, the editor pointed out some facts of life that are 100% in accord with standard procedures at Wikipedia. Things like this cannot be documented properly, per WP:BURO. Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Were you reading a different discussion than me? What I was reading about could certainly be considered started for trolling, but it was not discussing the "virtues of pedophilia" at all. Furthermore, there is no reason to tell the person on-wiki that you have contacted the police. That is in itself chilling effects meant to also effect everyone else in the discussion. Silver  seren C 08:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, actually contacting an external authority should be grounds for blocking until the reporting incident is resolved (unless it is an instance such as reporting a suicide or other such things already covered under our policies and which we're just to report to the Foundation for action anyways). Otherwise, someone who actually starts litigation on another user can't be blocked, since it's not a threat, but a reality. Silver  seren C 08:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For anyone interested, the matter started here, and finished . I can't take the original discussion seriously and so did not study it (I now see it was not the IP who opened the section with "I wonder about how much of the damage of child sexual abuse is inherent in the act..."). How editors could get sucked into such a discussion is beyond me, and the only outstanding issue might be to consider how to alert people that NOTFORUM and commonsense mean that Wikipedia (even at a fairly open reference desk) should not be used to chat about such matters. I repeat that of course anyone using external authorities to influence a disagreement will be blocked as a violation against the principles of NLT, however in this case the editor was trying to point out the degree to which the discussion was inappropriate—a commendable aim. It is not necessary or possible to precisely define the conditions where a block is warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My view here is that people need to distinguish between matters dealt with in civil courts and those dealt with in criminal courts. What we need to avoid is doing anything that would discourage reporting of criminal acts. Just as there is an essay WP:DOLT (don't ignore legal threats), you also have to bear in mind the need not to overlook reports of criminal acts (i.e. apply common sense rather than applying Wikipedia bureaucracy). By all means tell people that Wikipedia is the wrong place to make such reports, and point out that off-wiki disputes should not be be brought on-wiki, but don't use blocks in such a way as to create a chilling effect against reporting of such things. That is the crucial difference here, IMO. Remember that NLT is essentially a specific application of "don't bring off-wiki disputes into on-wiki disputes" applied to situations where litigation is threatened or taking place. But it is perfectly possible to provide guidance and counsel to those trying to do the right thing (report a crime) rather than applying a bright-line rule and blocking. The difference also becomes apparent when you consider unblocking. In cases of litigation, unblocks take place when the situation is resolved (e.g. retraction of the on-wiki threat). But (for reasons that I hope are obvious) you can't do that for reporting of crimes (it would arguably be considered obstruction of justice). Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that this is late in the discussion (like 6 months), but based on the section added just below, I felt compelled to commit on it. I agree completely with Carcharoth.  At a minimum, if an editor raises a question that something on Wikipedia is a crime, even if it is chilling, we need to take other actions prior to blocking the editor.  We need to advise them to report it to the appropriate authorities (and to WMF, if also appropriate), and talk to them about the chilling effects / NLT (probably several times) before we take any action to block.  I've made further comments below that are applicable here.   GregJackP   Boomer!   17:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have contacted law enforcement before about a Wikipedia editor, because of repeated death threats that eventually mentioned my hometown. We cannot take away an editor's right to protect himself or herself. --Rschen7754 23:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Death threats and suicide threats are one thing, but the situation linked to above is quite different. Accusing someone of pedophilia and getting the police involved is quite another manner, especially when the other person can then file a defamation suit. Also, the weird thing about this situation is that you can't really accuse the person of harming a child, since there's no evidence of that, so i'm not sure exactly what could be reported. And, regardless, reading the discussion, you can quite see that there's nothing of the sort in it. I would think there should be some of NLT response to erroneous police reporting and on-wiki accusations of things like pedophilia. Wouldn't that fall under NPA as well? Silver  seren C 00:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Chilling effect
I've been following a policy discussion, where a user persists in stating (relatively forcefully) that those who choose to abide by the proposal will be considered legally responsible for the actions of themselves and of others. The underlying point raises a valid question, although it's far too soon to tell if that interpretation is correct. That will have to do for now, I'm trying to be as generic as possible. I guess my question is: at what stage/with what veracity does repeating this point/making it more forcefully stray away from justifiable prudence, and into the realm of deliberately creating a chilling effect? —WFC— 11:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)