Wikipedia talk:Don't overlook legal threats

message: It should be pointed out that under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and particularly Barrett v. Rosenthal, re-posters of information have immunity from libel laws in the United States.  It seems clear that restoring the information constitutes reposting.   — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several hundred jurisdictions in which wikipedians operate.--Docg 08:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, s:Order of relief, Mrs M. B., Mr P. T., Mr F. D. vs. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. doesn't say that the individual poster is liable, either.  It merely says that Wikimedia is not liable.  (Aside from the article being an unsourced mechanical translation, which doesn't appear to meet Wikisource's requirements for an article.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The English Wikisource policy on translations is that they may be translated using the collaborative wiki approach  provided it is clearly marked as a wikisource translation.  This ranges from a bible to modern documents (provided the original is free of copyright). John Vandenberg (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I see your point, but remember: sometimes articles get blanked by anon IPs for the simple reason that they see that "Edit this Page" link -- & nothing more. Even the most veteran & sympathetic Admin is bound to be a DOLT, having no more information than that. -- llywrch (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unacceptable to revert a blanking, particularly of a BLP without at least skimming the contents to see if there's a possible good reason. WP:BITE and WP:AGF apply here. Better having a few blank articles for a minute or two, than libelling people.--Docg 09:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's "unacceptable to revert a blanking", are you saying we should withdraw ClueBot's approval? —Random832 14:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be modified not to automatically revert on BLPs.--Docg 22:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: old talk

message: If I log out and blank the biography of George W. Bush from an IP address, and the editors of that article leave me a polite note why I did it to which I respond the following day...this essay would advise that the Wikipedia article (and top Google hit) on the President of the United States should remain blank for 24 hours? And if different individuals do this every day, in perpetuity? Reductio ad absurdum. Skomorokh 20:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with ad absurdums is that they are usually absurd, and work on the basis that a principle needs to be idiot proof. Well, not so, idiots will always be idiots. Read in full "Never unblank biographies without asking why the IP might be blanking it"--Docg 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or if the edit summary decently explains it, or if the removal is self explanatory ("Politician X sodomizes children!") --harej 06:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never unblank biographies? 

message: I've restored a link to the ruling cited and added a paragraph from the ruling clarifying the immunity granted.  It's fully cited and only a relevant repost of a small part of the ruling itself, without which the comment on the preceding reference is misleading.  I hope that this action is not contentious.  Amicaveritas (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Amendments 

message: In (American) law, there is a strong presumption that people are entitled to have access to the court system to resolve disputes. Courts look down on attempts to keep people away from court.  Comments are occasionally made that amount to 'WP is private!', apparently meaning that 'we can do whatever we want! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!'.  Sorry, but law doesn't work that way.  WP can, and does, contain libel, and that libel is accessible to the public, and until the libel laws are changed, the persons offended by the libel have a right to object, and once they object, all people with the power to do something about the libel (i.e. remove it) are obliged to do so.  Some people here have thrown out their interpretations of legal decisions, or what their brother-in-law's friend's father's lawyer once said...they think.  Problem was, that lawyer might have never done a libel suit (very few lawyers ever do them in their entire careers).  And, to really understand a legal decision, you have to read it, know what factual circumstances apply, and what the limits of that decision are.
One problem is that WP's 'dispute resolution' system is a silly joke.  The 'rules' are stilted in favor of of WP (and in favor of malicious Administrators):  Many Administrators openly act as 'meat puppets' for their buddy editors, or for each other.  The mechanism they use for this formalized meat-puppetry is called 'flagging an article', which amounts to, "Hey buddies, I need some meat-puppet assistance on article [fill in the blank]!)  Flag, and a few minutes later, help arrives, as if on cue.  Because there was, indeed, a cue'.
Such phony 'dispute resolution' amounts to deliberate time-wasting for most persons objecting to libel.  WP:BLP policy is also a joke, although at least there has been some posturing recently to improve that sorry situation.  One major problem is that people simply don't actually follow the rules:  If a person reverts a deletion, and certainly if that revertor is aware of the objection to that material on libel grounds, that revertor is liable for the material he reverts.  That's not merely a statement of law, it actually mirrors WP:BLP policy.
Generally, very limited (temporary) 'immunity' given for  sites (like WP) over postings of third parties is based on the idea that WP can't instantly revert all libelous material, or even promptly determine that material was libelous.   So far, so good.  But when a person informs WP (or another site) that the material in question is libelous, the site becomes obliged to correct the libel promptly. The law, presumably, doesn't hold the site liable for the material prior to the objection, if the material is promptly removed.  But that may well be the only immunity the law confers.  But after a few re-tellings, (think of the child's game, 'telephone'), it has transmogrified into "go ahead and do whatever you want:  We are immune!".  You'll change your tune when the process-server has done his job, and you're sued.  (and by the time the judge declares you immune, if he ever does, you're out $50,000.)
Another extraordinarily biased, and indeed laughable, part of this policy is the idea that if a lawsuit is initiated, the suitor (the guy doing the lawsuit) is somehow banned from editing.  In your dreams!  A judge would look at that policy and first laugh, and then double the award for malicious behavior by the site.  Why?  The lawsuit would, primarily, be covering past libel, or perhaps continuing libel, perhaps in just one article.  But future libel, and on other articles, would be up in the air. An editor has a right (the same right as any other editor) to continuously monitor libel added in the future, and in other articles, and to attempt to correct that new libel.  But by trying to keep a person from editing (and thus being able to remove new libelous material posted in the future, perhaps in an entirely different article), WP looks like (and is!) attempting to obstruct a person from correcting future libels: This amounts to a penalty (a punishment) for exercising one's first-amendment constitutional right to 'petition the government for redress of grievances'. 
Does that sound unreasonable?  Suppose you disputed your gas bill, or oil bill, and the company said, "Okay, you can sue us over that $100, but we'll instantly turn off the heat, and you'll freeze!  The lawsuit may take a year to end, and it's only October!"   If there's something that courts really hate to see, it's one party to a dispute using its greater power to crush the other party, by threat of unilateral action.  Look up a case called "Long v. Shorebank Development", 1999, in the 7th Circuit Court of appeals, if you doubt what happens to big companies who abuse vulnerable individuals. 
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=case&no=981564
(Renter was evicted over a very small bill, a few dollars, and it turned out that the renter was actually ahead on her payments!)  It's quite simple:  If WP prevents a person who sues it from continuing to edit, the immunity that some of these laws seem to confer could be instantly declared inapplicable by the judge, on the grounds that WP was not acting 'reasonably' (fairly)  After all, if an editor is being deterred from suing due to one incident of libel, for fear of being obstructed from editing, most people would agree 'that's not fair'.  In that case, the website is actually aware that future libel is not being effectively deterred. 97.120.253.218 (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP doesn't have any contracts with users, nor is editing Wikipedia an essential service. Wikipedia can deny service to anyone at any time, and no one has any more legal right to edit Wikipedia then they did the Encyclopedia Britannica.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I strongly support this summary.  There is a dangerous catch-22 here.  In order for you to invoke certain claims you ARE REQUIRED IN LAW to use the words "libel" "slander", ect. and issue a cease-and-desist request.  In order to be able to continue defending yourself on Wikipedia you are forbidden from the same as it could be construed as a legal threat.  So you have a choice, either you attempt to exert your legal rights and get banned, or you attempt to defend yourself in consensus discussions and forgo your legal rights to do so.  HominidMachinae (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-legal-threat policy itself is illegal 

message: This essay currently says: "I'll just pop to the administrators' noticeboard and issue an all-points bulletin to get an immediate block done." Checking off one more good judgement to cite at his RFA, he heads off, feeling good."
OK, the newbie jonesing for an administratorship wasn't showing the best judgment, in this particular case, but, it their note on ANI triggers a block of Bob Jones, the primary responsibility for that block would lie with the administrator who imposed the block without doing their own research.
What I would hope would happen at ANI is that cooler heads would look into Headhunter's report, read the situation more clearly and (1) urge Headhunter show more caution; (2) offer Bob Jones advice as to how to use our existing channels to address their concerns.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  cooler heads 

message: Could an even shorter nutshell be written as...?
"Revert, block, ignore" is not usually appropriate for legal threats.
Of course, I mean mainly that the "ignore" part is inappropriate; I understand why legal threats are blockable offenses regardless of their merit. The word "usually" is meant to allow exceptions such as disruption by banned users known to make frivolous legal threats as part of their modus operandi, but you may remove it if desired. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps "Revert, block, ignore" is not entirely appropriate for legal threats. ? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to RBI