Wikipedia talk:No legal threats

Archives

February 2007 September 2008

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 Wikipedia: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? () 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. () 01:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the current title explains our position very well. 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." () 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. 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^∇∆∇∆ 03:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

New version incorporation jpgordon's comments and other comments:

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.

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^∇∆∇∆ 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. (end) 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)

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. ^{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. ^{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:

Resolved.

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. 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been taken care of on OTRS. Don't worry about losing anything on Wikipedia. ^{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 m: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. ^{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. ^{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:

One Wikipedian, a lawyer, set forth a legal argument about something or other. Copyright or whatever.
Someone else questioned the validity of the argument, using languages that was well within the bounds of normal debate. This user was also, in my opinion, correct on the substance of the matter.
The first user, the lawyer, went ballistic and threatened a libel lawsuit. Calling into question her legal skills in a public forum, she said, was libel. Some googling suggested to me that she might actually follow through with such a suit. (She didn't, as I calmed everyone down.)
I blocked her from editing and established the principle that, gee, we are not the kind of a community where people are going to be suing each other over arguments... and if you have a fight that has gotten that serious, then you need to take it outside Wikipedia.

– Jimmy Wales

But what we're talking about here is very different, and it's a kind of thing that has happened before.

1. Someone posts vicious libel about me, a WP:BLP subject who knows little of Wikipedia
2. I remove it because it is libel and mean.
3. It is posted again.
4. I say, hey, knock it off, that's libel. I remove it again.
5. It is posted again.
6. I say, seriously, I am going to sue you if you keep this up.
7. 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.

You have made a threat of legal action, this is in breach of Wikipedia's Policies. Please either retract this or contact the Wikimedia Foundation. If you proceed with legal action, the editing privilages of this account will be suspended until the issue is resolved. Please respond within 24 hours of this message (Date&time) or it will be assumed you intend to proccede and editing privilages suspended.

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 Wikipedia: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. — Werdna • 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! — Werdna • 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 m: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. ^{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,

1. Block
2. Explain it's wrong
3. Wait for a complete, utter and unambiguous withdrawal
4. 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. — Werdna • 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. ^{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. ^{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. ^{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. ^{Son of the Defender} 22:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What about non-legal threats?

This page is about legal threats, but what about non-legal threats like:

• threatening with incident reports and other internal procedures to win a content discussion;
• threatening people with bodily harm, etc.

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)

See Wikipedia:TOV for threats of violence (basically report to ANI, falls under civility), and the other is usually covered by civility and WP:DR. 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. 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. 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, 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)