Wikipedia talk:No legal threats/Archive 1

message: :If you ignore the advice above and take legal action against another Wikipedia contributor, then we regret to inform you that we may have to temporarily revoke your editing privileges on Wikipedia. We do this for the protection of all parties involved: both you, the person against whom your legal action is directed, and Wikipedia as a whole.
:The revocation of editing privileges is effective solely as long as the legal action is underway, and will be lifted as soon as we are informed that it has completed, either by the case being dropped, or settled, or resolved in a court of law.
:We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
Wikipedians who support revoking editing privileges for people making legal threats against Wikipedia contributors:
* Martin (but not strongly)
* richardchilton
* Dori (only applies to threats, not to actual action)
* Neutrality (hopefully!) 20:31, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
* Adrian Lamo Elucidated below.
Wikipedians who oppose revoking editing privileges for people making legal threats against Wikipedia contributors:
* Perl (unless the user is obssessed with iridology)
* Anthère0
* Jamesday (reasons below)
* Anthony DiPierro (we'd have to get rid of Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content)
Wikipedians who think that this should be decided on a case by case basis, and that many if not most legal threats are in clear violation of Wikiquette, which is a bannable offense:
* Angela
* —Eloquence
* Camembert
* Flockmeal
* Metasquares Only if they're bypassing dispute resolution or the threat is unjustified.
* Luis Dantas
* Jwrosenzweig (obviously a little biased, but I assumed my opinion was welcome)
* Jmabel 08:58, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bans on users taking legal action 

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

message: I think some serious clarification is needed on the question of "legal action" and/or "legal threats".  It would seem obvious that to encourage an open community that legal actions and legal threats related to Wikipedia itself should be banned or otherwise discouraged.  However, as stated currently, the policy appears to be far too broad.  It appears that you are proposing that anyone with any legal action pending against another user be restricted from making any changes.  Unfortunately, there are far too many disputes that can only be resolved through legal action which have nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia.
Consider, for example, hypothetical UserCP and UserNCP.  These users used to be married and have children together.  UserCP is raising the children.  UserNCP is, for want of a better term, a deadbeat dad.  Under the policy as outlined, UserCP would be asked to not edit Wikipedia articles if UserCP has to take legal action to resolve the issue of child support?  This clearly has nothing to do with Wikipedia.  Similarly, if we consider, again completely hypothetical, UserCollegeGirl and UserOveractiveTestosteroneBoy in the case where the latter attacks the former, are we asking the former not to press criminal charges against the latter if she wants to edit Wikipedia?  This seems to be a request that is not in the best interests of Wikipedia or public policy in general.
I would suggest modifying the policy to reflect that "legal threats" unrelated to Wikipedia have no place being discussed in Wikipedia and that "legal threats" and/or "legal actions" directly related to Wikipedia result in actions against both users involved until the dispute is resolved (including limitations on editing pages in which either party is involved).  It might be possible for the sake of the community to ask that Wikipedia users who are involved in "legal actions" that do not involve Wikipedia refrain from contacting the adverse party using Wikipedia (possibly including refraining from editing pages in which the other party is involved, but I worry this may stifle work on articles where the issue in contension is not related to the article).  --Christi 21:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

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

message: So from what I can see, there is some confusion and disagreement about whether no legal threats applies to vandals, mostly centred around Willy on Wheels (on the WoW page and this here). Now, this bit on Wikipedia:Replies:"Wikipedia is also an unattractive spam target for well-established legal reasons. Most countries do not have laws against USENET or email spam, but most have laws against unauthorised website defacement — what we call vandalism."states that wikipedia vandalism is equivalent to website defacement, and that there are laws against that. It seems to imply that legal action against (extreme) vandals is a possibility.
Would it be possible to either make it explicit that wikipedians should not discuss possible legal action against vandals, or on the other hand make it explicit that vandals should not expect protection under the "no legal threats" policy? Because I'm a bit confused by all this. --Codemonkey 14:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Can we have a clarification on this? — Omegatron 06:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  legal action against vandals clarification (sort of connected to WoW and [[Wikipedia:Replies]]) 

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

message: I recently received legal threats on my talk page from an anonymous user with no other contributions.  I will link them:
Legal threat: 
Contributor: User:66.101.11.58 Contribs: Special:Contributions/User:66.101.11.58 (i.e. none besides that edit - ever)
So what is the proper recourse?
I thought that I sourced the article quite well, and indeed they agreed with most of the points made.  But they are insisting that "It is just a rumour that he did that - you can't prove it".  But it is stated as a rumour, which is the whole point of it.  It is a rumour that was widely believed to be true, and had 15 sourced references that people used to believe it to be true.  It was never stated as fact - only stated as a rumour.  But that the rumour was important because it led to the death of talkers.
Now, their defence, apparently, is that Virus says that he didn't do it.  That's it.  Nothing else.  
Am I required to remove the information, where it demonstrates clearly that the rumour was widespread and influenced things?  The assertion of fact is only in the fact that the rumour was spread and influenced things greatly.  Do I have to remove it?  What is the ruling there?
They also implied that they would sue me for slandering his good name.  Yet I didn't say his name.  I said Virus.  Virus isn't a real person (and I for one find it amusing that a person who calls himself Virus is insisting that the rumours that he hacks places is a lie) and hence how can it be slanderous?  If it is in relation to the business, well, the business doesn't make any money about anything.  Indeed, as they have already said, the fact that the rumours were spread actually increased their popularity.
I don't see why we can't write the articles from a neutral point of view, and I welcome their contributions, although I wish that they'd source them better.  But I am not too fond of the legal threats.  
What should I do? Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 00:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Report them at WP:AIV. Jesse Viviano 19:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with legal threats 

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

text: That's odd. Dershowitz blanked his own article and yet Jimbo caved in to his "strong complaint". If you're powerful enough, the legal threat rule doesn't apply. - Xed 20:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see Brandt's act of injecting himself into the Siegenthaler issue as being in good faith. It smacks of desire to add fuel to a fire that was otherwise about to die. Wikipedia didn't need 'saving' in this respect. Having read Brandt's edit history and his own account of the events leading to his own blockage, it seems evident that he just couldn't be troubled to use the extensive processes which Wikipedia has in place for review and arbitration of content. I've edited my own Wikipedia article for accuracy a couple of times, but never for opinion, tone, or unflattering content -- Brandt could easily have done the same. *THAT* would have been good faith. Siegenthaler was one guy that didn't clearly grasp the Wikipedia editorial process; Brandt is another. Wikipedia should exercise care in blocking critics, but legal threats have no role in developing good content. -- Adrian 22:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're Adrian Lamo, computer hacker?  Hmm.  Anyway I will say no more on that one.  We'll just say that I totally disagree with you. By the way, how come your article says that you are "misunderstood"?  That's not very neutral, is it? Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not unexpected that you might disagree with me. I did, after all, disagree with you first; I'd be pretty surprised if you _didn't_ disagree. Cheers :)   Adrian Lamo 23:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dershowitz 

message: At the foot of the page,See MeatBall:LegalThreat takes the reader to a page which includes the classic piece of Americanglish "he won't do it, so he is threatened to loose his credibility". This obviously needs to be corrected, both for grammar and spelling, but editing doesn't seem possible. Can someone please sort it out. ....dave souza 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Also, meatball is editable. Martin 19:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A trivial side issue

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

message: "But, if you really feel the need to take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we ask that if you do so, then you do not edit Wikipedia until the matter of law is settled - one way or the other - to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels."
Wouldn't the party who takes legal action also be legally obliged to edit Wikipedia on the grounds that he is obliged to mitigate damages? Ken Arromdee 18:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitigation of damages 

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

message: Is making legal threats against Wikipedia prohibited by this policy? It appears to only apply to making legal threats against other editors. Here is an example of a legal threat against Wikipedia. Someone comes along and finds an article about herself on Wikipedia. There is nothing defamatory in the article and it is referenced. If she says that she will sue Wikipedia for having the article or sue if it is not removed, would that be prohibited by this policy? If not, should it be? Here is another example. A new user creates an article. Then, someone else edits the article. The user is enraged and says that he will sue Wikipedia for altering his work (I know this would not succeed, it is just about the threat). In both of these cases, especially the second, there is a good chance that the legal threat is just that, a threat, and the person does not intend to take legal action. When someone makes legal threats against another editor, the policy says they are blocked so that the only communication is through official channels. Even when there is a small likelihood of someone taking legal action, I think they should be blocked because they are trying to use threats to intimidate other editors and the Foundation in order to get their way (threatening the Foundation seems to be rather successful, unfortunately). I propose that the policy be modified to include Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Kjkolb 08:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any objections to the policy being changed to include legal threats against Wikipedia? -- Kjkolb 21:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about legal threats against Wikipedia? 

message: Should there be an exception to this rule if someone wants to prosecute prolific vandals who do extreme damage to Wikipedia like Primetime and Willy on Wheels? It is starting to get apparent that maybe the way to shut such vandals down is to have the Wikimedia Foundation file either police reports or lawsuits against those who do this. If suggesting this itself is a legal threat, please respond on my talk page and I will remove this suggestion. Jesse Viviano 18:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's the Foundation's purview, since they're the ones being hurt by it (Especially Primetime, who is FAR more damaging to them then WoW, since he exposes THEM to legal threats). 68.39.174.238 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Willy on Wheels is in England and the Wikimedia Foundation is located in Florida. I don't think we would be able to extradite somebody for page move vandalism. — DominiquePonchardier 21:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with DoniniquePonchardier—in the (probably unlikely) event anything like this were to happen, any such initiative would have to take place on behalf of, or at least with the authorization of the Foundation. I think it's implicit that anything done with express permission of the WP:OFFICE would be permissible. Newyorkbrad 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I can help with this. If WOW is in the UK, then interference with Wikipedia occurred in the UK and remedies should be pursued with a UK attorney. We have so many contributors here that perhaps a UK attorney is among them, who would be willing to handle the case for a reduced fee. Criminal charges are extremely unlikely, but an injunction that forbids similar misconduct in the future (with a contempt of court charge if the injunction is violated) should be available for a fairly low cost. Dino 16:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be an exception to this policy if someone wants to prosecute a prolific vandal like Willy on Wheels? 

message: If I stated that I thought Wikipedia was in violation of the law, and that I was contacting an appropriate law enforcement, would that be a blockable offense? I just saw that happen, and it seemed rather strange. -Freekee 05:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While that is not really a threat, the policy seems to indicate that for the duration of the legal action the user should not edit wikipedia, perhaps the block was simple to help the user do so. Not sure, just guessing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, it should have been stated. I don't think that was the case, though. The person it happened to was certainly being a persistent jerk. I'm sure the blocking was a reaction to that. But the person's last couple of comments were, after he was warned about making legal threats, disbelieving that he made legal threats and taking pains to clearly state what he was going to do, to avoid being banned for making threats. I would have preferred he be banned for a different offense. And his threat was to call the Attorney General about the pornography found here in articles about anatomy. Which is kind of laughable anyway. Thanks for your answer. -Freekee 18:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  application 

message: If you do decide to proceed with legal action,
 you should deal with it privately with the user by e-mail.
 Do not thrash out the issue in a Wikipedia forum or talk page;
 you may find that other users take the side of the other party. 
 (Would you really want to sue a group of users if that happened?)
These sentences above are quoted from Wikipedia:No legal threats. However, ...
--Sushisushi 09:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't realize these legal threats sentences! 

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

message: * Wikipedia and the other Wikipedians should lead all the Wikipedians in question to special pages. Don't be afraid. Are all current English language Wikipedians hoping to be insulted and scorned as evil and coward people by all ordinally brave people? I am not! The sentences above should be replaced by new decent ones like that:
 If you do decide to proceed with legal actions,
 you can deal with them officially with the other users
 in the special pages which are prepared by Wikipedia.
 Please thrash out the issue in these Wikipedia forums,
 even if you filed a suit for your damages.
 We can get very important lessons directly, if you do so.
 You may find that the other users begin to take your side one after another,
 if you are less evil. 
 (Would you really want to sue a group of users if that happened?)
--Sushisushi 09:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Do not thrash out in a Wikipedia forum"?