Wikipedia talk:No legal threats

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

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

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 29 § Template:Sub judice.   talk 20:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant TfD nomination

message: Include a link to WikiProject Law as a hatnote at the top of the article, such as this:
172.112.210.32 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . Since there's already a hatnote related to the LEGAL shortcut, I added the WikiProject to that line. Firefangledfeathers 17:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protected edit request 

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

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

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