Wikipedia talk:No legal threats/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Chilling effect, another example

At WP:ANI the following question has arisen:

Does this comment amount to a legal threat against WP? --Nigelj (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

While a first discussion was archived with the outcome that it did not appear to be a legal threat, the follow-up discussion may be continued over here. De728631 (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ANI

Sorry, but you've got it wrong. NLT is not about specific wording, it's about an attempt to intimidate via quasi-legalistic language, which is exactly what the IP was doing. He's now redacted the legal threat, so that's that (for now). But you need to understand what NLT is actually about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Bugs. There is really no difference in chilling effect between "I am going to sue you" and "I am going to get criminal action brought against you." Nor is this a question about someone's ability to report a crime. If the IP really thinks that there's criminality on that article, then he or she can certainly go to the authorities to report it. What they cannot do is threaten to go to the authorities in order to get something done here. There is a neutral, non-threatening way to point out potential criminal liability, and a threatening, NLT way to do it, and this was decidedly the latter. In my opinion, the closing of this thread and dismissal of the complaint was a mistake in judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above. There is a clear threat here to take a legal action. People are, of course, allowed to contact the cops if they see a crime. What they may not do is to us the threat of contacting the cops to intimidate others. This is a clear letter-and-spirit violation of NLT if I ever saw one. --Jayron32 20:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I gave the user a pseudo final warning, saying I'd re-report him here if he continued what he was doing. He's still at it by the way, except now he's using ad-hominems of sorts and other methods to produce a chilling effect to get us to do what he wants. I also directed him to Commons (sorry all there), as that's where the images are hosted, where he may have more luck. If an administrator can please take some sort of action to prevent this chilling effect from going further, it'd be appreciated. Thanks, gwickwire^talk_edits 22:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is simply not true. I have been discussing the issue WITHOUT using a legal threat at all. I have not been using ad-hominems at all. I would like to see some sort of proof of that considering that I can't see it. This is nothing but a complete lie. I have also been responding to a personal and ad hominem attack that Baseball Bugs has put upon me which he refuses to retract although he, as his history has shown, is not slow to report any and everyone who he thinks violates Wikipedia policy in order silence them.

proof. Which has been provided multiple times before and always gets a "I didn't say that" response from you, when the diff shows that you said it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Even though the IP claims to not have said it, they did partially redact the threat themselves shortly after it was brought up at ANI. If they had been more upfront and admitted to the threat, this issue could have been resolved without the escalation drama. Although, due to their cleanup of the threat wording, I question the block reason. Granted, they were approaching a block for trolling (if not already exceeded it), but I suspect a NLT block may not be supportable given the attempt at redaction. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly a legal threat; I've blocked (only for a week, given the nature of IPs, but poke me if he reappears after that and acts in a recidivistic manner) Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: a head's up that in this reply to the block, the user's statement "Thank God for dynamic IP addresses" suggests the page needs to be monitored for block evasion now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

From WP:NLT: "Rather than threatening to employ litigation, you should always first attempt to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures."

Based on the definition of "litigation", the user did not breach the letter of NLT, but he certainly violated its spirit. Perhaps NLT should be amended to include criminal prosecution. As far as I know, there isn't any policy regarding criminal lawsuits, and I believe that WP policies are set up in such a way so as to prohibit actions by users that would violate United States or Florida law (though I'm not sure about that), but these things do come up every so often. Would anybody be interested in an RFC on NLT to include criminal lawsuits in the definition of legal threats and explain how concerns of criminal violations should be reported and addressed? —Rutebega (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think that our point is getting through. I posted the following in a discussion with an admin who dropped by to comment on NLT at my page, and it holds true here.

"I have to disagree from several standpoints. First, it is not morally or ethically correct to discourage someone from reporting what he believes to be a criminal offense to law enforcement authorities. Second, it may very well be a criminal violation in and of itself to discourage someone from reporting an offense. Third, it would be terrible press for the project to have that splattered over the news that Wikipedia wanted to prevent the reporting of a possible crime, especially in this case, where the crime allegedly involves minors and sexual matters. Finally, taking it in context, nowhere in the policy does it speak about criminal actions, it speaks of litigation. It is a question of balance. Which is more important, the editing of articles, or crime? That is not to say that I agreed with the way he went about it, but I don't think that we should, nor do I think the WP:NLT policy requires, us to take action to prevent someone from reporting what they believe to be a crime to authorities. As a hypothetical, what if a female editor is raped by a male editor at Wikimania or another WP sponsored event. Are we saying that she can't pursue criminal charges because it inhibits editing? That's not morally nor ethically sound."

As a further note, it speaks of litigation and civil lawsuits, but not once mentions criminal actions. Like I noted above, I don't think that the individual went about this the right way, but speaking from twenty years of personal experience in the field, in any of my cases, anything that could be construed as obstruction got a very close look. I just don't think that it is good for the project to use that policy in criminal matters. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, the difference is not in reporting Wikipedia to criminal authorities, it is in using the threat of doing so as a means to get his way. No one has said he can't walk into his local FBI office and ask to have someone investigated. What people have said here is that he can't threaten to do so on Wikipedia as a means to force others to his will. --Jayron32 04:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what we are trying to do, as far as getting his conduct back to civility. All I'm saying is if I were contacted on a criminal investigation and presented with the facts that we have here, one of the things that I would have done when I was an officer is look at whether any obstruction occurred, or tampering with either a complaining witness or evidence. Second, this type of thing tends to attract press coverage if the cops are incensed about it. Either one of those things is not good for the project.

I could have missed it, but I didn't see anyone tell him that if he thought there was a crime, to report it to the authorities, but don't discuss it here. What I saw was what appeared to be an attempt to shut him down and get a retraction from him by threatening to block him. There are better ways to do this on criminal matters. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(I'm no longer talking about the specific case above anymore, sorry) My thought was that we should include criminal matters in NLT, but to categorize it slightly differently than threats of civil litigation. Obviously, telling another user that you're going to call the cops on them is unacceptable, but I feel that NLT should emphasize that legal concerns of a criminal nature should not be discussed on talk pages, but reported to AN/I perhaps, or in an email to WMF or whatever consensus deems appropriate, and if the issue cannot be resolved internally, then the user should not be discouraged from reporting the issue to law enforcement agencies, but should understand that their account will be blocked until the matter is resolved for the same reason NLT currently cites.

Anyway, this isn't really the place for such discussion; my comment was only intended to gauge interest in an RFC on the topic. It seems like there's a potential for discussion, but to verify, does anybody else think it would be a good idea? —Rutebega (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not, as far as blocking them for NLT. If they are disruptive, handle it, but don't take action that would appear that we are trying to cover something up or otherwise obstruct justice. GregJackP Boomer! 17:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't my idea at all, but if someone is genuinely concerned about this type of legal issue, then they shouldn't be harping on the talk page about it. It should probably be reported to sysops, and if nothing is done about the issue on wikipedia and the user isn't satisfied by the explanation, then they should be allowed (encouraged even) to report the issue to law enforcement agencies, though they may still be blocked from editing for practical reasons. All of this I outlined above, and I'd leave it up to consensus of course, I only thought that this discussion should take place. —Rutebega (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is an important discussion to have. Can we move the lower part of this discussion regarding the general notions of NLT and chilling effects and threats to notify the cops and things like that to the NLT talk page perhaps? This is probably something that needs to be resolved and clarified, lest we run down this road again... --Jayron32 06:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have wanted to write up an essay over Chilling Effects (like this kindof was) at Wikipedia, or a proposal to add it, but haven't had time. I'll see what I can write up. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe what needs to be emphasized is the approach. The right way to say it is, "I'm concerned that this might put Wikipedia in trouble with legal or civil law." The wrong way to say it is, "I'm gonna call da cops / I'm gonna sue ya!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of NLT is to keep legal disputes off-wiki and prevent editors being discouraged from editing by the threat of litigation. As in "remove those comments about Acme dogfood now, or my lawyer will be in touch." In this case, the user said he thought the pictures broke the law, and he would contact law enforcement if they were not removed. The correct response was not a block - it is very problematic to block somebody for pointing out that the law is apparently being violated (the vision of a Fox News headline "Wikipedia blocks editor for pointing out kiddie porn pictures" says it all). The best answer would be just to advise the guy that we don't think the law is being broken, but he is welcome to contact the authorities to confirm this with them. If he then persists in deleting whatever he is agin, then by all means block him for disruption. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. GregJackP Boomer! 07:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The hypothetical aspects of this discussion have been about the presence of certain material on Wikipedia being a crime in and of itself, and how an editor should report that, and how policy shouldn't chill an editor from reporting it to the authorities if internal complaints were ineffective. A different problem might be plausible information that is posted on Wikipedia indicating that an off-Wiki crime occurred, and the victim and jurisdiction are potentially identifiable. An appropriate course of action for an editor who sees such information might be to not make any mention of it in any public or private area of Wikipedia and just notify the authorities in the jurisdiction concerned. Indeed, if the possible victim falls into a protected class, like a child or elderly person, and if the editor lives or works in the jurisdiction and has a position that requires him to protect members of the protected class, such as a doctor, teacher, or emergency medical technician, the editor might be legally obliged to report the information to the authorities specified by law. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Chilling effect example

Here's another one from ANI[1]:

"You can be liable to law prosecution by Rexhepi himself for spreading false information on his account and missusing his name."[2]

The text "false information" is a report of a legal problem, but the statement goes well beyond that. If it read, "You can be liable to law prosecution by me for spreading false information," the answer would be obvious. However, the comment maker is not the one threatening law prosecution. Given that the difference between the two are only a few words, others may reasonably understand the above as a legal threat or not. I think more information should be added to Wikipedia:No legal threats taking into account all the threads above. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed clarifications of scope

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was that the proposed clarifications of scope were rejected with 16 editors opposing and 1 editor (the proponent) supporting. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a few tweaks to clarify the scope of the NLT policy. In particular, it's implicit in the policy that legal threats made off-wiki about a Wikipedia dispute will be treated the same way as threats made on-wiki. I believe this needs to be made explicit, as it leaves a possible loophole by which the policy could be evaded. I'd therefore propose to make the following changes:

1. In the first line, amend to read (all new additions in bold type):

Rather than threatening to employ litigation over a dispute involving Wikipedia, you should always first attempt to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures.

This would clarify that the policy applies specifically to disputes about matters involving Wikipedia (e.g. content editing, things that editors had posted etc).

2. Add a new second line, to read:

If your dispute does not involve Wikipedia, please do not use Wikipedia to pursue unrelated legal disputes.

This would clarify that Wikipedia is not a venue for pursuing legal disputes that relate to matters that are outside Wikipedia (e.g. if two editors were importing a real-world feud separate from their editing on Wikipedia).

3. Add a new paragraph under "Perceived legal threats", to read:

Legal threats made by editors concerning matters involving Wikipedia will be treated the same way whether they are posted on Wikipedia or on external websites. If it comes to the attention of administrators on Wikipedia that an editor has made a legal threat about a matter concerning a Wikipedia dispute, the author of the threat may be blocked from editing irrespective of where that threat has been posted.

This would clarify that the venue of the legal threat is unimportant (as it should be; the rationale of the policy would still stand wherever the threat had been made, as it would still have a chilling effect on editing, cause bad feelings and a lack of trust, etc). It makes explicit what is currently implicit and would close a potential loophole where (for instance) an editor could make a legal threat on their blog and claim to still be compliant with NLT because they had not actually posted the threat on Wikipedia, even if people here were aware of it.

I'd be grateful for comments and feedback about these proposed changes. Prioryman (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

One thing I've been thinking about for a while now - would it be feasible to have a legal threat noticeboard? Giant Snowman 20:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Instead of reporting them to WP:AN, you mean? I don't think they are common enough to justify having a separate noticeboard. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not the foggiest idea how well your proposed expansion to include non-Wikipedia sites would work in practice at all. If it requires "connecting dots" between a WP account name and a non-WP account name, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to justify, and might, in essence, require "outing" of the outside identity. Would you exclude such "outing" from the WP:OUTING policy? Collect (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I think it would have to depend on there being an undisputed link between the editor's account and their off-wiki identity. It's likely that such a link would have been established by the person making the threat - if they are threatening to sue over a dispute that is happening on-wiki, it's very likely and probably inevitable that they will identify themselves as one of the disputants. If an editor voluntarily discloses their own identity in such circumstances then it wouldn't be outing for others to make that link. Prioryman (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is the problem with that:

Scenario One: I make an account at Blogs "R" Us and impersonate you, then make a legal threat. You deny being the same person.

Scenario Two: You make an account at Blogs "R" Us and "impersonate" yourself, then make a legal threat. You then deny being the same person.

How do I tell the two scenarios apart? Someone who want to frame you for making legal threats will look exactly like you making legal threats in such a way as to retain plausible deniability. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

(Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Prioryman. I'm curious as to how you arrived at "it's implicit in the policy that legal threats made off-wiki about a Wikipedia dispute will be treated the same way as threats made on-wiki" ? From my initial reading of that claim, I presumed that WP:NLT already considered off-wiki legal threats actionable, and that you were just looking to shore up the wording. However, in reading through NLT now I see no reference to off-wiki activity. Am I missing something? Tarc (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that's always been implicit in the policy. Currently NLT doesn't say anything explicitly about the venue of a legal threat, which is logical enough - it will have the same negative effects wherever it is posted. But I think it's worth saying explicitly that the venue is irrelevant and that posting threats will be treated the same way whether on- or off-wiki. I don't think we would want to create a loophole where someone can evade the policy by posting a threat off-wiki in the knowledge that it will have an effect on-wiki. Prioryman (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Change to flat oppose per below arguments. The first and third proposed changes should be amended to read:
Rather than threatening to employ litigation over a dispute only involving Wikipedia, you should always first attempt to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures.

If a real-life dispute that tangentially involves Wikipedia, but is primarily dealing with issues not involving Wikipedia, we do not need to be involved. As proposed, the guideline is too broad. Note that if there is a lawsuit involving two or more Wikipedia editors, but it is not discussed or addressed on Wikipedia, we don't need to be involved. Further, if there is a legal dispute and we try to mediate the dispute, are we opening up Wikipedia to discovery requests and document production? I'm not aware of an exception that would prevent a party from seeking either.

The second change is fine as written.

Legal threats made by editors concerning matters involving only Wikipedia will be treated the same way whether they are posted on Wikipedia or on external websites. If it comes to the attention of administrators on Wikipedia that an editor has made a legal threat about a matter concerning a Wikipedia dispute that only involves Wikipedia, the author of the threat may be blocked from editing irrespective of where that threat has been posted. Threats that involve other issues which do not involve Wikipedia will be considered a violation of the No Legal Threats policy only if they are posted on Wikipedia. Administrators who become aware of threats off-site that do not involve Wikipedia shall not take any action based on the off-site activity. When the issue involves matters that concern both Wikipedia and other, non-Wikipedia issues, administrators may take action if the dispute affects Wikipedia.

~~Again, the proposed language is too broad. We shouldn't be intervening in matters that don't involve the project.~~ GregJackP Boomer! 20:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with the principle you stated in your last line. I'm trying to address three principles here, actually:

If your dispute involves Wikipedia, you should follow dispute resolution first.
If your dispute doesn't involve Wikipedia, don't use Wikipedia to further your cause.
If you make a legal threat involving Wikipedia off-wiki, it will be treated the same way as if you had made it on-wiki.

The aim of the last principle is simply to avoid the loophole of people using off-wiki means to evade NLT. A threat is a threat, wherever it's made. We shouldn't create an artificial distinction between on-wiki threats and off-wiki ones, as that will just encourage people to make threats off-wiki instead. Can you think of an alternative form of words that would address that principle? Prioryman (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec x many) The change in #1 is reasonable. In #2, remove the "please", which makes it sound more like a matter of courtesy than urgently blockable behavior. With regard to #3, there are several concerns though none are, to me, insurmountable at present. They are:

Is it enforceable only against editors who have acknowledged on-wiki their identity as the author of the externally posted threat? If not, how do you propose to address issues of doxing/outing and joe jobs?

Necessarily, yes. Here's the scenario I envisage: an editor posts a legal threat against another editor off-wiki. It comes to the attention of people on Wikipedia (perhaps the target makes a complaint). The editor making the threat is asked (1) to confirm that they have posted it and (2) to disavow the threat and pursue dispute resolution instead. If they confirm (1) and refuse (2) then they should face the usual NLT block. Prioryman (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It mentions only threats posted on external websites. What about threats made in other media (a newspaper interview, a print advertisement, a leaflet, etc.) or made without the expectation of becoming public (leaked from a third party, drunken rant caught on video, legal complaint made public by court procedure, etc.)?

Realistically a threat is most likely to be published on an external website, like a personal blog or a forum where the threat's author is complaining about how awful the target is. If the other scenarios were to occur then they'd need to be tackled, but I very much doubt that would need to be addressed specifically. Prioryman (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What about threats that have already been made—would their authors become immediately sanctionable if these changes became policy, or would it only apply to external threats made after the policy changed?

Policy changes can't be effected retrospectively, so retrospective sanctions wouldn't be possible. Prioryman (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If the change becomes policy, and an editor doesn't discover the existence of a certain legal threat until long after it was published (say years) and no actual legal action appears to have been taken, is it still enforceable, or is there effectively a statute of limitations for apparently idle threats? alanyst 20:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Good question, but the same would apply to threats made on-wiki. If someone posted a threat on an obscure talk page and nobody noticed until years afterwards, would we take action under the present policy? Prioryman (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Just an example, within the last year there was an imposter of blocked user Offtoriorob/YouReallyCan stirring up trouble on Wikipediocracy. There was histrionics on-wiki over these off-wiki shenanigans, which melted away when the Joe Job was exposed. The ill-considered idea of making off-wiki legal threats by purported wikipedians punishable on-wiki would open the door for imposters, trolling, and dezinformatsiia. There is absolutely no way to connect reliably Wikipedian A with purported Wikipedian A appearing on external websites B, C, and D. Carrite (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, that alter ego was never disavowed by the editor concerned. He was asked directly (I asked him myself, as I recall) whether it was him but refused to reply. If someone was being joe-jobbed, why would they not say so? In such a scenario, if an editor suspected of posting a threat off-wiki declined to confirm that they had posted it and refused to disavow it, that should be treated as an implicit admission of responsibility. Prioryman (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked him too and some people ran cover for him on his talk page here claiming it was improper to ask. I'm pretty sure that it was him and if I had noticed the unban thread on ANI quickly enough, I would have opposed his unban "per Prioryman". However, I think that there is a difference between wanting to clarify if the person passing themselves off as a Wikipedia user and making homophobic and anti-Semitic comments about other Wikipedia users really is the same person and some potential threats. It would be helpful to see some examples of some cases where you feel that the proposed changes would be helpful rather than just generate drama.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
If it was him and he lied and said it wasn't, then what? If it wasn't him, do you think it is a sound principle to require one to prove one's innocence when this, that, or the other thing happens on far corners of the internet? The fact is that there was a contradiction in American v. European spelling; it was a joe job and kudos to Rob for not throwing himself on the mercy of the court for something he clearly didn't do... Carrite (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Quoting Greg Kohs on this matter: "Who's ready to create the "Chris (Prioryman) O[...]" account at MyWikiBiz or Facebook or Twitter, then have it bark vociferously about how he intends to sue anyone on Wikipedia who opposes the Gibraltarpedia project? Should be a quick way to get him indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia." Carrite (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Kohs evidently lacks reading comprehension skills (along with much else) as I've already addressed that in my reply to Alanyst above. I proposed a two-prong test: the editor making the threat is asked (1) to confirm that they have posted it and (2) to disavow the threat and pursue dispute resolution instead. If someone was stupid enough to try to joe-job me, I would deny that I had posted it and I would disavow the threat. A threat that is denied and disavowed is no threat at all. Prioryman (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. We have no jurisdiction off-wiki, nor any easy way to determine even if the purported off-wiki remarks are the same person as someone editing on-wiki. If an editor says "I would like to direct everyone to comments that I made at such and such place", that is already block-able if those comments were a legal threat, even if the threat itself was not duplicated on-wiki. If someone says "I would like to direct everyone to comments that someone else made at such and such place", that is something we can watch, but are not actionable unless they are either duplicated on-wiki, or an editor specifically on-wiki takes claim to them. Anything else is just supposition. And yes, disavowing robbing a bank works every time. Apteva (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The title of this section is misleading. These are not 'Proposed clarifications of scope' but instead significantly expand the scope of enforcement to external organizations and could impact Wikipedia negatively by increasing the number of legal threats brought into discussion on-wiki. →Stani Stani 21:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I called it a "clarification" because it would indeed clarify whether off-wiki threats are within the scope of the policy. Let's at least be explicit about what venues are covered here. Prioryman (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. It certainly clarifies your intent. Chasing external websites would be sending Wikipedia editors and Arbitrators on a fool's errand. Changing from 'Comment' to 'Oppose.' →Stani Stani 22:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose If ArbCom can't even decide if wiki rules extend to IRC channels that are specifically linked from en-wiki, how does this even make sense? And the tone of the disavow example given above seems a bit too much like "are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party" for my liking. Sorry...we seem to have enough issues dealing with conduct on wiki now to even consider something this sweeping. Intothat darkness 21:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The point of this policy is to confine conflicts in-Wiki by preventing people from using such threats in conflicts here. So, if someone makes something that could be construed as a legal threat off-wiki, whose fault is it when that threat is brought to bear in a discussion here? This simply gives people here a weapon against anyone who is so foolish as to (a) talk about their Wikipedia problems off-site, and (b) leaves too open a trail. It doesn't contain the conflict; it imports it here. Besides, it's commonly the case that people are unable to retract their off-site words, and therefore could be permanently blocked on that basis. And there's the Joe job issue others have brought up. Sorry, but the actual result of this extension is simply to given dispute warriors here another tool against their enemies. Mangoe (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment It sounds like Prioryman's interpretation of the policy is accurate. To quote policy, "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly, by email or through any other contact methods the user provides." Note that it is the fact of the legal action, beginning with a contact by e-mail or other means, which makes the editor be requested not to edit. This is not a policy strictly about what is posted to a page. If the policy is not interpreted this way, it would seem like any editor can circumvent the NLT policy as easily as by using Wikipedia e-mail to deliver a stream of threats rather than posting to the page, or if that is ruled out, by investigating to get another e-mail address or offsite contact location. Because I take Prioryman's initial interpretation to be accurate it isn't immediately obvious that the policy needs to be changed, but we should have clarity on this. Wnt (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Legal action and legal threats are millions of miles apart from each other. No lawyer is going to allow their client to edit Wikipedia while they are pursuing action against Wikipedia. On-wiki we have a zero tolerance of legal threats. Off wiki we have no control. Since we already say that no one taking legal action can edit, nothing else needs to be added. Apteva (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - The premise of "If you make a legal threat involving Wikipedia off-wiki, it will be treated the same way as if you had made it on-wiki" is unenforceable, and is really just another branch of the long dead WP:BADSITES tree. If things that editors say in IRC, or what editors blog about at the Wikipediocracy, are untouchable, then this is equally so. Tarc (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Under the policy, this seems like a nonissue: "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning". That means that if someone tells an admin, "Joe just threatened to sue me!", the admin would, under policy, ask Joe if he had anything to do with that. If he says yes, he can still clarify/retract, leaving the editor no longer "on notice" of a "cease and desist"; if he says no, of course, then the editor has reason to dismiss the communication as not genuine. (There is some imprecision here in that an editor should not be required to out himself in the course of confirming or officially retracting a legal threat, which is why I say "had anything to do with" rather than "did" here - of course, to repudiate it, he need make no statement at all about his relationship with the offsite identity. Wnt (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral I think this is only an issue if its something where an off-wiki legal threat is made and then is brought on-wiki by trying to be used as blackmail or other form of intimidation. The existence of an external legal case is only relevant if it impacts on-wiki editing and interactions. If an off-wiki legal case is going on between two editors who otherwise don't interact on-wiki, then there wouldn't be a need to block either of them, presumably. Though, in most cases, it will end up on-wiki eventually and we can deal with it then. Silver seren^C 02:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I think too many people are jumping to conclusions, both on the proposal, and about what they think NLT says. It seems pretty clear to me, as it does to Wnt, that NLT right now does not care what venue the threat occurs in. Whether that's on wiki, in a letter, on another site, or through the arrival of a summons on your door. Imagine a NLT policy that allowed people to be engaged in active litigation, so long as they didn't mention it on wiki. That seems to defeat the entire purpose of NLT. That isn't to say we shouldn't be sensitive to worries about imposters, etc., but don't misunderstand what's been longstanding policy; the venue does not matter in and of itself. My gut says this proposal adds more confusion than clarity, but that's a separate issue. Shadowjams (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I can imagine a case of a cast iron connection between a Wikipedia account and an off-wiki legal threat (such as when the off-wiki source and the Wikipedia account both acknowledge their identity) but finding the words to define all cast iron cases, while excluding the gaming and errors described above would be difficult. I think enough can be implied from the existing policy but even if it can't, in a cast iron case we could exercise common sense and IAR. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. We have no control over what goes on off-Wikipedia. We have no reliable means to identify people off-Wikipedia. If it doesn't interfere with what goes on on-Wikipedia, it is none of our business. If it does interfere, we can use common sense, per Anthonyhcole above. Incidentally, I have a suspicion (I'm no lawyer etc...) that courts in some jurisdictions might take a dim view of uninvolved parties (i.e. Wikipedia) imposing sanctions on individuals involved in court cases for no good reason. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment. What about the following scenario. Person Y was convicted of stalking person X, a judge has imposed a ruling barring Y from following X, contacting him via socal media etc. Wikipedia also falls under this ruling. So, Y is not allowed to follow X on Wikipedia and post on his talk page. Then if Y does do that, X can invoke the court ruling. But then it seems to me that Y could use that against X to get him banned even if X were to invoke the court order via his lawyer. Count Iblis (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a very interesting hypothetical, one I suspect might have or will occur. I'm tempted to adopt GregJackP's reasoning that enforcing a judgement is different than initiating some other action, but that's not a fully satisfying answer either. And legal issues have lots of stages of "resolution", up to statute of repose or final appeal. However, Count Iblis' specific hypothetical doesn't have much consequence because X isn't "invoking" the court order in any technical sense, aside from perhaps filing a motion or a police report, depending on the circumstances. It's the court doing the enforcement of the court's order. I'm fine with that technical distinction removing this scenario from NLT.

What's unmentioned though is how many of what we'd consider very reasonable actions in some strict technical sense involve legal action. What about reporting obvious criminal activity? Our NLT policy is not very useful in these circumstances. I'm concerned with the certainty some editors have about NLT in the comments here when there seem to be some serious gray area. Shadowjams (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment. @Count Iblis, I don't see that as a legal threat - X is enforcing a previously issued judgment of a court. The legal threat would have been valid for the initial complaint (until the judgment was issued) if it had involved Wiki, but your hypo is different from that. I see it as similar to enforcing an Arbcom decision. GregJackP Boomer! 18:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I bring up the case of the organization who I believe had the acronym AAMF, where they sued Wikimedia, never really posted it onwiki from all their accounts, but they were still blocked. At most, they linked to the suit onwiki. I know the acronym is wrong because I can't find it for the life of me, so don't hate me.
Bottom line, if I sue the WMF, then I should be blocked from editing. That's for good reason, mainly to eliminate chilling effects, etc. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 15:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as per Carrite, as it could encourage off-wiki forgeries (known in Internet jargon as joe-jobs) to pursue vendettas against Wikipedia editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The nuances of these hopefully rare situations need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. There are situations in which an off-site legal threat should result in an immediate and indefinite block. There are other situations in which an off-wiki legal threat might be understandable. There are even (extremely rare) situations where an off-wiki legal threat or even the filing of an actual lawsuit against a bad-faith editor might be the right thing to do. No "one size fits all" policy language can anticipate all potential situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm always hesitant with anything involving external sites, as I know there are people who use my username on external sites who are not me. (For that matter, there are a few hundred people just in North America who share my real name.) Especially for those with popular usernames, I doubt they want to constantly deal with "No, that 4chan account that just threatened to $INSERT_TERRIBLE_THING_HERE isn't mine." (On the other hand, if the offsite content is used for on-wiki harassment, that's a very different story.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose; having a policy for such a rare set of circumstances is merely bringing more bureaucracy. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - way too easy to create a hoax and get someone blocked. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Wikipedia's juristiction covers only what happens on Wikipedia and what's sent through Wikipedia's e-mail system. Even if someone uses their SUL to make legal threats against an other Wikipedian for activity on English Wikipedia, or to threaten such activity against Wikipedia itself, we have noright to take any steps about it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Mainly per Newyorkbrad. Such situations should be dealt with case-by-case. There is no one approach that works in all circumstances and this is not common enough to warrant expanding the policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Whilst I am sympathetic toward the situation that is intended to be addressed here, the most serious cases will often be in breach of the law and the criminal law at that - threat of violence including sexual violence, revealing the identity of the victims of sexual assault in many jurisdictions, some defamation. The WP policy has to be that the WMF cannot be held responsible for policing these situations and that if the law is being broken by editors then that is a matter for the legal authorities in their country. It is important when a row blows up (as it did over a weekend for Twitter recently) that there are clear visible and unambiguous policies in place that serve to distance the WMF from the indefensible and do not appear designed to protect the perpetrator. If the policy is to be amended here it must be associated with a clear statement on that. After all, in practice action can and will be taken eventually, to protect the page if necessary, the problem is in the delay in doing so. --AJHingston (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the changes proposed, but I think that some of the opposition fails to realize that some off-wiki threats are already actionable here. It depends on the intention and nature of the legal threat. There is nothing in the current policy that requires the legal threat to be posted on Wikipedia. Gigs (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. While I appreciate the desire to bring clarification to ambiguous policies, I think that off-wiki threats need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. It is not our role to police the Internet in order to hopefully determine if an off-wiki adversary making legal threats against Wikimedia projects or their volunteers is a volunteer of the project itself. Note that while I may oppose this change, your work is sincerely appreciated. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 21:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Am I making a legal threat?

I recently re-did my user page which now includes the following:

I encourage editors to report unlawful, covert marketing participation to the attorney generals most active in astroturfing:

California consumer complaints
New York submit a tip form

I have a PR background and am a regular COI contributor. I recently talked to an expert on astroturfing regulations and he suggested these were the most appropriate places to file a complaint against those that are clearly breaking the law. The suggestion is intended to be for overt bad-faith cases, not those that just didn't know any better.

I'd be happy to take it down if it's a problem. I see how it could be sort of iffy. CorporateM (Talk) 17:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I would say that if I could look at your posting history and figure out that you think user X is astroturfing, that shouldn't be on your page, but as long as it is not individual-specific, it would be like me saying "if you have a legitimate suspicion that someone on Wikipedia is harming children, report that person to his local police" (and I am saying that you should do that). You might want to add some wording to the effect that if they do file a report concerning astroturfing, you should not mention it on Wikipedia. Besides violating our policy on legal threats, no prosecutor wants the bad guys to know what he is and is not investigating. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Done that seems sensible. CorporateM (Talk) 20:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat?

Does the edit summary to this edit amount to a legal threat that would be covered by NLT? - htonl (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that edit summary is a problem. I have not looked at the issue in any detail, but there is some chance that the "controversy" section (that the IP mentioning legal issues wants removed) is junk. Every organization has had an eruption at some stage, and it can be very WP:UNDUE for the article to be permanently marked with a section commemorating the issues, particularly when it is often someone who does not like the organization that wants to add and pad-out the section. I can't see a wikiproject to appeal to for help. Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Externally hosted legal threats

Is it acceptable to link to link to an off-wikipedia page where an article subject is making comments about identifiable Wikipedia editors, which would clearly violate NLT if they were made on a Wikipedia page? This strikes me as an easy way to avoid WP:NLT while attempting to chill discussion/editing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No way. Posting links to a page that contains outing or chilling threats is the same as outing or chilling on wiki. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Handle legal threats on talk page

Hi, it's Allen. I want to handle threats on Wikipedia, like on talk pages: I remove them by removing the source from a page or using this code  hide them. This should work on fighting against threats. --Allen ^talk 03:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not get involved in other people's disputes, and definitely do not hide problems. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

He's referring to discussion on his talk page, specifically this. Kirin13 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The user who did reverted my edit on my talk page: response to me that I don't have a full option to edit/remove users' comments (but removing messages is the full option for me), it says that I was warned not to harass them on Wikia then I'm fine editing here. --Allen ^talk 03:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yikes, what a mess. @Allen: If you do not want a particular comment on your talk page you are free to remove it (see WP:TPO). However, you have to delete all of it, not just hide or remove parts you do not like. Regarding the hidden post: it's probably not a good idea to link to external sites, but I can see why that was thought desirable, and it does not appear to be revealing any personal information (which would be strictly prohibited per WP:OUTING). People who are unable to write clear English should not claim that English is their first language, and should consider whether en.wikipedia is the best place for them to contribute. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thank you, and also I did removed part of a section that's completely threatening or compromising me on Wikipedia, and not attempt to harass them on Wikia anymore. Specifically, I edit/work on Wikipedia on my own with rollback and reviewer rights! --Allen ^talk 20:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Allen, you don't have rollback nor reviewer rights. Also, if you don't want users from Wikia to contact you, then you should stop contacting them (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). If you want to be left alone, then leave them alone. Furthermore, writing "I'm good/perfect native speaking of English" (diff) only shows the opposite. Kirin13 (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kirin13: Thanks for your advice. I would have to leave Wikia users alone at this point, then I'll be fine. It says "Wikia have less strict policies from Wikipedia, but this isn't Wikia (probably it's an encyclopedia only)". It's Lucas Thoms, he did try to help me on Wikipedia trying to make the encyclopedia better. Also I'd better help out more on Wikipedia. --Allen ^talk 21:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Also I did removed Cod4's message from my talk page, as I agree with him to stop harassing others from Wikia then I probably working here on Wikipedia safely. Even that helps a lot, an admin/bureaucrat considers me without any problems of these legal threats that to keep their drama on Wikia only. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 00:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Will I be blocked from editing if I take legal action without making a legal threat on wikipedia?

Will I be bLocked from editing if I take legal action without making a legal threat on wikipedia?Whereismylunch (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Block / ban or duration?

If a recognisable person makes a clear NLT related to their own identity, are they blocked or banned?

As usual practice is that blocks extend across accounts, is an IP that makes such an NLT also blocked across any other IPs they might use?

What is the duration of such a block? How can it be removed? By time, or by public withdrawal of the NLT threat?

If a disruptive troll socks to a new IP and states, "I am Roger Tichborne and I will sue Jimbo for barratry on the high seas", is this Tichborne then blocked? Isn't this quite an easy route to trolling Tichborne at little effort - whether Tichborne (a recognisable identity of public record, even to WP:N) is a regular editor here or not? How do we safeguard against this? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The block is against the person making the threats. You can consider it a ban if you like, according to local definitions, meaning you can keep on blocking and reverting the IPs or accounts. They cannot edit until the threat is redacted or concluded in some other way. If a disruptive troll says anything I wouldn't believe them but would block them instead - you can easily confirm the intention with the real user and other accounts, if there are any. Many of us around here are accustomed to dealing with joe jobbing, even with the NLT policy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this legal?

Is it legal to intimidate users against exercising their legal rights? Has Wikipedia failed as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.232.68 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

To your first question: ask a lawyer. To your second question: no. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing is academic. No one is above the law and that includes Wikipedia. Certain admins may disklike what they describe as legal "threats" but no one can or should stop you from utilising your legal rights. Smurfmeister (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

How to report a threat

Hello, I just posted some steps on how to report a legal threat here. Can someone please look it over and comment here? It would be helpful to get community consensus about this, because it is not obvious what the best practice is in the most common case.

Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#How_to_respond_a_legal_threat

I take the most common case to be an WP:SPA saying, "I will sue you" to some Wikipedian for reverting their ad.

Jusdafax, you just helped me with a legal threat. Will you look over this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I am no expert, being more of a generalist around here, but it looks pretty good. I'd say though that the template to inform people of an ANI discussion is easy to use, and spares you the stress of further wordplay with the party involved. Further, if you start an ANI complaint, and don't inform the party you are complaining about, someone else almost always will. It's considered standard policy. Best wishes! Jus da fax 15:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Are people's legal rights still protected within the context of Wikipedia?

I have not personally ever heard of a legal ~~president~~ precedent anywhere to say that private organisations can legislate how or when someone can act so as to preserve their legal rights. Out of interest, can anyone please clarify the legal situation? Greg Kaye 17:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Your question makes absolutely no sense. No one will be able to answer that, as it is impossible to parse the meaning of that sentence.--Atlan (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking? Do you want to know if an online encyclopedia can prohibit someone from participating if they are suing some other participant? Or what? Your question is very unclear. GregJackP Boomer! 01:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You probably meant precedent instead of president but it's still a weird question. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and Wikipedia can block anyone from editing for any reason if it so chooses. People who need to contact Wikipedia's owners for legal reasons can still do so by phone and email and snail mail and showing up on location, or in serious cases by contacting police if they think it's justified. My point is that they don't need editing privileges on the site to be able to make contact/to voice their concerns; their "legal rights" are not affected by Wikipedia's decision to block them from editing the site. (I'm not a lawyer.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeraphine Gryphon TY I was just editing that.

I clearly asked whether "people's legal rights are still protected within the context of Wikipedia" and have also asked, "can anyone please clarify the legal situation" in regard to any justification that may be given in regard to Wikipedia's prohibition against legal notices which is something that Jeraphine has addressed. My question was broad in scope but, while admittedly it did not focus on a specific issue, it was clear.

Let me broach the issue in another way. What routes can people take within Wikipedia so as to preserve their legal rights? The project page makes a single statement mid way in the second paragraph, "You should instead contact the person or people involved directly, by email or through any other contact methods the user provides." Say, in such a case, the person has an anonymous form of username and does not reply to a legal notice presented by email. What happens next? Greg Kaye 09:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You can not present legal notices through email in most jurisdictions. GregJackP Boomer! 23:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

So your issue WAS clear, it was just us being too stupid to understand what you're talking about? Do you even want an answer from any of us, because we are clearly not up to your level of legal discourse.

Anyway, that situation you describe is beyond the scope of Wikipedia, which is exactly the point of WP:NLT. Wikipedia doesn't want legal issues handled through Wikipedia, so it says to try to contact a person directly, i.e. without using Wikipedia. Whatever happens outside Wikipedia, we can't control. That said, I still don't understand what "legal right" you are referring to. There is, at any rate, no legal right to use Wikipedia to sue people that I've ever heard of.--Atlan (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The question in the OP suggests a complete misreading of the WP:NLT policy—there is no connection whatsoever between what NLT says and the question. Also, asking random passers-by to clarify a legal situation is very unlikely to be helpful, so I suggest the OP seek independent and professional legal advice outside Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That is true, but he was asked to take his question to this talk page, so we can't blame him for doing just that.--Atlan (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see that at ANI. A quick look shows a blocked IP made this comment with an obvious legal threat likely to create a chilling effect on an editor, and a confused interpretation of that situation has been presented. GregKaye may care to note that no one has denied the IP access to legal options. The hypothetical quasi-questions raised about the issue are perhaps based on a misconception, and I would recommend WP:HELPDESK rather than this talk page because there is no proposal to change the policy. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

This is similar to this discussion. GregKaye cannot distinguish between real life and Wikipedia and he contends that as long as Wikipedia is not on board with his concept of reality, it is denying people here basic human and legal rights. Since he cannot be persuaded otherwise, we might as well end this right now and avoid the aggravation of a pointless discussion.--Atlan (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Atlan I think that it is fair to comment fairly that I do not see a great distinction between "real life" and the activities of living contributors within the Wikipedia community. My general point of view is that ethics are universal. Wikipedia editors (working with devices in the real world) edit in relation to topics that typically relate to the real world.

I appreciate comment by Atlan that "Wikipedia doesn't want legal issues handled through Wikipedia, so it says to try to contact a person directly." However Wikipedia also permits anyone to edit even under anonymous user names or (and actually with more traceability) as an IP.

The thing that I find quite humorous is that editors "here" often talk of Wikilawyering. Clearly there are issues related to what Wikipedia wants or what "Wikipedia doesn't want" but I think that it is worth observing that we react fearcely with heavy sanctions against the application of the normal/real world processes of justice so as to permit the unchallenged application of Wikipedia law.

We are not a nation state. We are, I hope, in the real world and are subject to its laws.

I do not personally see the relevance if, for instance, a crime has been committed (even if it has been committed within the hallowed, non-real world, grounds of Wikipedia) for a wronged party to be punished for making attempts to exercise her of his normal, real world legal rights.

However, other editors here seem acquainted with claimed problems with a parallel application of both real world law and Wiki law so, if there are strong arguments for denying the application of real world law within the context of Wikipedia, so be it. Greg Kaye 17:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Title and lead issues

The title of the project page presents a no compromise message Wikipedia:No legal threats.

A page text of 1576 words then follows which is introduced with the first sentence and opening paragraph.

Rather than threatening to employ litigation, you should always first attempt to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures."

Within this context I think that it is possible for the 77 word content of the first four sentences of the second paragraph to be lost. This text, in contradition to the page title, reads:

"If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, you must not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly, by email or through any other contact methods the user provides. If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact Wikipedia's parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation."

The fifth sentence of the second paragraph presents the current consensus and universally applicable directive, "Do not issue legal threats on Wikipedia pages" and I think that a content such as this might make a good first sentence for the page.

Also in the second sentence I'd like to question the validity of the text that presents the justification, "... to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." My understanding is that legal process can happen through its own channels but that this does not necessarily proscribe that interactions between involved parties should either be especially permitted or restricted. Surely, if an editor's case has not been supported within Wikipedia's arbitration boards then no further justification is required for the removal of editing privileges. But, on the other hand, if an editor's case has been supported within Wikipedia's arbitration boards (or there are no specific concerns raised) then there may be no reason for blocking an, in some ways, wronged editor.

I think that it would be better if the page were titled either as Wikipedia:Legal threats. The policy regards "legal threats" and the consequences that can occur when they are made. (I think it is worth noting that a common name term is "legal notices". See Ngrams).

I also suggest the use of a text such as:

Do not issue legal threats on Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia has its own dispute resolution procedures which are available and recommended for use.

If you feel you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, unless it has been agreed (within dispute resolution processes here) that you have a valid case, you must not edit Wikipedia until an externally pursued legal matter has been resolved. In all such cases you should contact the person or people involved directly, by email or through any other contact methods that the user provides. If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact Wikipedia's parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation.

Greg Kaye 13:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It's debatable but I think the current title is fine, because it is generally true that making a legal threat will result in the editor getting blocked. Which is typically an undesirable result for the editor. I mean, we could call it "Making legal threats is okay if you don't care about getting blocked" but that's a bit long.

In your proposed change, in the first sentence, I don't like the juxtaposition of making a legal threat and using Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes -- I understand the point you're making with that (don't use threats in an attempt to get what you want, use proper procedures instead), but it kind of implies that discussing things on Wikipedia is on par with/comparable to taking real-life action like reporting someone to the police. We should not be advising people to avoid talking to professionals (police, lawyers) when/if they believe they have a serious legal concern. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The proposed text would have Wikipedia deciding if a party had a valid legal case or not? Ah, no, that's called practicing law without a license. It's a crime in many locations. Additionally, even those of us who do have law licenses do not have one to practice in all of the United States, much less the rest of the world. The current policy is fine. GregJackP Boomer! 01:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, I found that part problematic as well but I wasn't sure how to argue that. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction

I'd like to bring this policy up to date in relation to the harassment discussions we've been holding in various places.

My understanding is that if an editor who believes she is being harassed calls the police or hires a lawyer, that's not a violation of NLT. It becomes a violation only if she discusses it on WP. But this policy implies that taking legal action (which I assume would include contacting the police, asking a lawyer to write a letter, and applying for a court order) would attract a block, whether discussed on WP or not.

We can't block people for defending themselves against a threat, so that part ought to be rewritten. I'm pinging Roger Davies, who was one of the editors discussing this. Sarah ^(talk) 21:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are partially correct. I suffered off-wiki harassment but wasn't blocked for WP:NLT until I mentioned it on Wikipedia. I'm not exactly sure if I'm right on the admin/ArbCom thought process, so you may want to ask Risker too. I think that taking action to defend oneself was and is OK, but that it is the on-wiki discussion that triggers the block or sanctions. GregJackP Boomer! 22:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah: I don't recall discussing this but since you ask ... I do think that the seeming prohibition on editing while off-wiki legal action of whatever nature is in train is ridiculous. Does it mean that a party who successfully obtains a restraining order against a banned user is prohibited from editing until the restraining order ends? Where is the sense in that? The prohibition you mention, is also, to my certain knowledge, routinely breached. The idea that, for instance, WMF employees starting legal action or reporting stuff to law enforcement should absent themselves from wiki for the duration is a perfect example of wishful thinking and unenforceable overreach. Roger Davies ^talk 09:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say a banned user is not part of Wikipedia and thus a legal action against them would be unrelated. Chillum 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I've understood this to apply to cases where a Wikimedian sued either the Foundation or another Wikimedian. It is quite a bizarre policy on its face, since the merits of a legal suit have no relevance to whether a contributor can make a good edit. Perhaps this was intended as a bar to litigation (if you sue [or get sued!], you're done here!), but it's really not Wikipedia's place either to encourage or to discourage litigation in such a manner. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The purpose is to make sure that untrained volunteers are not resolving legal issue on the wiki and also to prevent the chilling effect on content that such a threat can have. Chillum 19:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Chillum: I really don't see how this page could be read as a "wrong forum" document. Its purpose (plainly stated, imo) is much broader than that. That said, I think it would be a good idea to transform this into a "wrong forum" document, as the purposes expressed above are quite inappropriate for an encyclopedic policy. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Roger and others, thanks for the replies, and sorry for the delay, but I've only just seen this. I think the problematic part is only in the lead, so I'm about to make an edit that removes it. Sarah ^(talk) 23:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Lawsuits and conflict of interest

Slimvirgin made these edits. I object to this addition pending more information.

Editors involved in a legal dispute should not edit articles about parties to the dispute, given the potential conflict of interest.

Here are some difficulties:

Talking about COI leads to difficulty on Wikipedia. Like with WP:SHL, the topic should not be introduced except in places where people are expecting to see and discuss the concept. Introducing the concept here is extraneous. The idea expressed here is not already well developed in the linked COI page, so far as I know, and as it relates more to the concept of COI than legal threats, at the least the concept should be developed there first before mentioning here.
This rule empowers corporations over individuals. Wikipedia is a public communication channel for presenting information that is less available or developed in other media outlets. A typical action that I wish to continue to permit is coverage on Wikipedia of class action lawsuits by the plaintiffs. If there is some major lawsuit, like lots of injuries from a dangerous drug, or lots of harm due to an employer putting workers in an unsafe condition, or lots of consumers complaining about some unfair corporate practice, then in some cases the parties to the action are also the most knowledgeable, engaged, and expert sources of information on the lawsuit. Introducing new and extra restrictions on editing by combining wiki-fear of COI and wiki-fear of lawsuits is not warranted without an explanation. This is an extraordinary prohibition without a basis either in this police or the coi policy.
I do not share the presumption that people involved in lawsuits are so compromised that they cannot engage with Wikipedia. They are often expert sources of information about their lawsuit, and need safe channels where they are explicitly invited to participate.
Lots of organizations routinely engage in lawsuits which are fairly dispassionate and are intended more for public attention or edification, and ought to be invited to Wikipedia to share what they have. There is Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA, but I still support either of those organizations following Wikipedia community guidelines to contribute to their own articles, the article of the lawsuit, or related articles giving background to the lawsuit. They are experts and should feel comfortable sharing information here, not find ambiguous barriers and prohibitions.

I would like that line removed.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Bluerasberry; I too would like the line removed. Jus da fax 01:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTADVOCATE people should not use Wikipedia to right great wrongs. If an editor is involved in a legal action it is obvious they have a COI and "should not edit articles about parties to the dispute". SlimVirgin's recent edits (which follow from #Apparent contradiction above) improved the policy and should be retained. They clarify that it is the posting of legal threats on Wikipedia that violates NLT and may lead to a block—if someone initiates legal action against another contributor (perhaps as part of a claim of harassment, for example), there is no reason for a block. Having said that, it is desirable to point out that the editor should not edit articles about parties in the dispute. The text in question uses "should" as is done in other policies—if there is good reason to perform an edit, go ahead, but involved edits should generally be avoided. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose removal. People who are involved in legal disputes should not edit articles dealing with any of the parties or participants in the case. It is a clear COI. GregJackP Boomer! 01:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal threats off-wiki is not okay

"No legal threats" does not mean "no legal threats on wiki". It means "no legal threats in response to routine Wikipedia activities".

This line which was just added should be removed.

That users are involved in a legal dispute with each other, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia.

The behavior to curb is resorting to legal threats, not only avoiding posting them on Wikipedia. A common case is that a business owner tries to make a promotional article for their company and themselves, it gets deleted, then they threaten to sue. Sometimes this happens off-wiki. Such people need to be blocked also, because this is a policy about preventing creepy behavior wherever it happens and not about regulating on-wiki activity. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That line needs to remain. Wikipedia has no business suppressing someone from exercising their legal rights, nor should we be in the position of putting indirect pressure on them to forego filing a criminal or civil claim against someone, especially if it involves off-wiki activities. GregJackP Boomer! 02:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Objections to pictures

SlimVirgin and Johnuniq do not like the illustration here. They have removed it from the article.

The image has been here at least since 2007 and been kept by a lot of editors who have made a lot of revisions, and who can be presumed to be savvy enough to remove the picture if it were objectionable.

I assert that the picture is relevant, informative, increases readability, and conveys the seriousness of this Wikipedia policy page. Slim and John - why do you want this removed? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SV and John. It does nothing for the article. GregJackP Boomer! 01:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP How do you feel about pictures generally? When should they be used? Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I like pictures and take 'em all the time. This particular picture does nothing for the policy. GregJackP Boomer! 02:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry, I dislike it in part because it implies that Wikipedians can't take legal action and remain Wikipedians, and in part because it isn't a good image. Sarah ^(talk) 02:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! GregJackP Boomer! 02:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed w/ SV and GregJackP (on the first). I actually like the image, just not here. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"How to respond" section

I've removed the "How to respond to a legal threat" section. It was added unilaterally by an editor about 4 months ago, and contained several arbitrary guidelines and incorrect terminology that may have lead editors to believe there is a formal process for reporting WP:NLT violations. –Darkwind (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Darkwind There is a formal process and it is here on this page. Can you please voice your objections explicitly? This is the time and place. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The material was added on 14:05, 6 April 2015. It is not clear how it benefits the policy, and I'm not sure what point was intended. One issue is that it is probably not a good idea to say anything at all that may be construed as advising people about how to respond to a legal threat because that leads to the can-of-worms where someone might say "I followed the advice and ended up bankrupt after being sued". Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq The intent of the "How to respond" section was to inform people faced with legal threats to their on-wiki behavior what best practices are available for responding to these threats.

I am not ready to take your answer to do nothing without learning more about why you feel that is the best response. The Wikimedia community is comfortable providing these wiki websites and fostering a process which leads to frequent legal threats against volunteers who participate. Contributing to Wikimedia projects is the activity in most Wikipedians' lives which is most likely to result in someone making legal threats to them. The risk of being faced with a legal threat is much higher here in the Wikimedia projects than it is in almost any other public place where typical people go, and the threats come as a consequence of routine on-wiki behavior and not because volunteers do anything extraordinary on the website.

If the Wikimedia community is comfortable inviting volunteers to engage here, even knowing that Wikipedia attracts ridiculous people who make outlandish lawsuit threats to its volunteers routinely for no good reason, then the Wikimedia community needs to also take responsibility for giving notice that this kind of behavior is to be expected and to provide some community best practices for volunteers to consider. It is unfair to volunteers to be put into the situation where they wonder what they ought to do, only because people hesitated to present the best available information for fear that it is not good enough. It is deeply unfair to volunteers who experience legal threats to isolate them with no community support or direction.

The advice that was put on the page was minimal. When I put it there I was trying to do the least surprising or controversial thing. In this age of Internet, using the old pre-Internet advice of telling everyone to consult a lawyer for all lawsuit threats is not reasonable advice. The community should post something here, and if it really is a legal liability to the Wikimedia Foundation, then they can correct it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the point of "this space intentionally left blank," so I'm going to remove it unless persuaded otherwise. Sarah ^(talk) 16:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin The point is to acknowledge that this is the place for Wikipedia contributors to get guidance on legal threats, and that intentionally no guidance is being offered even though Wikipedia can acknowledge the need. Is this not the place to convey that information? Is there consensus to either give guidance, or consensus to avoid giving guidance? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a need for an empty section. The place to go if someone posts a legal threat is AN/I. Sarah ^(talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin So does that mean that the "how to respond" section should say that all legal threats are reported to AN/I, because this is consensus? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need a "how to respond" section. The first sentence says "Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator." There are other sentences advising admins not to be quick to block but to check intentions first, and there's the part about withdrawing the threat. That's probably all we need to say. Sarah ^(talk) 19:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

I reconsidered - the amount of content here is the right amount. I think I might fork out a longer explanation elsewhere in case someone requests it again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No legal threats -> radical changes -> now yes legal threats

The changes made today are showing increased sympathy to Wikipedians who want to initiate legal threats against other Wikipedians.

Maybe there should be on-wiki support for more Wikipedians to initiate more lawsuits against other Wikipedians for more reasons (like harassment), but the title here is "no legal threats" and that has been a policy and idea that has had popular support for a long time. Sometimes Wikipedia policies make bold statements even if those statements are not always accurate in all situations. I think saying "no legal threats" is the best thing to say and consequently, the content of this page in every place should say "no legal threats".

I wish to avoid a trend in which policies become friendlier to allowing legal threats to be passed around the Wikimedia community, until and unless the Wikimedia community wants that to happen.

I do not object to anyone starting an essay or another policy called WP:Yes legal threats and describing ways to be a Wikipedian and make legal threats against other Wikimedia community members. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

No one has suggested encouraging legal action for Wikipedians, or extending sympathy to those that get involved in lawsuits. The no legal threats policy is designed to stop conduct that chills contributions and discussion on WP. I can guarantee you that getting involved in a lawsuit outside of Wikipedia with another Wikipedian does not result in sympathy here, nor should it. But exactly how are you going to respond to the individual who has legitimately been harmed, but that WP is discouraging from reporting a crime that has been committed against them? Really? The person who was in a car accident and hospitalized should not be able to be compensated for her injuries because the other driver edits Wikipedia? Who is going to compensate them? You? And on top of being injured, you're going to rub salt in the wound by blocking them? The policy has never been to block people for off-Wiki legal actions or activities. Editors only get blocked when they bring that off-wiki action into the WP environment, and they are blocked for the chilling effect it has, not because they are "creepy." GregJackP Boomer! 02:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP Talking on Wikipedia or online generally is never as effective as talking by voice and video. When the personal attacks come a good response is often meeting online for video chat, so I emailed you and sent you my Skype. It is so much friendlier by voice. Let's make an appointment to talk! Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, I don't do online chats, never have cared to learn about them. I've struck the comment, but Wikipedia does not want to be in the position of telling editors what legal rights they can or cannot exercise. We just want to keep legal threats off of the project. This is not a change, this is how it has always been handled. GregJackP Boomer! 03:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP You have my email - send me yours and I will give you my phone number. When someone seems like an idiot online it is because text on a page is not a natural way to talk, and a few minutes on the phone is more effective than days of back and forth online. The radical change here is introducing the possibility that off-wiki threats are okay. The history is that WMF does not like addressing off-wiki threats, and ArbCom does not have capacity to think about them, but Wikimedia community policy and human decency still should prohibit these even if it we have a lot of trouble proving who said what off-wiki. It would be better for this page to say in every way "no legal threats" and introducing this new text about how legal threats are okay if they are off wiki or how they are okay if it is not about wiki is not appropriate. If someone wants to expand on the topic then they can write an essay elsewhere. This page should be short and unambiguous - "no legal threats no exceptions" and if there are exceptions put them somewhere else. No where before the recent changes were there justifications for using legal threats sometimes - this is new, it is a change, and it is not always how it has been handled. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, I'm not comfortable in calling. I'm sorry, but you are wrong on the legal threats issue being changed. I know for a fact that as of 2010 one could be in a lawsuit against another Wikipedia editor and still edit here, so long as it was not discussed on Wiki. If you want to change the policy, fine, take it to the Village Pump and try to gain consensus. Wikipedia should not be in the position of interfering with the people's right to seek justice. GregJackP Boomer! 18:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course Wikipedians can be in lawsuits against each other but the discussion here is whether the wiki community tolerates a Wikipedian threatening or harassing another Wikipedian off-wiki. You support changing the text of this policy to allow off-wiki threats, whereas the old policy did not. The way things should be is that Wikipedia community members must be nice on and off-wiki, not just on-wiki, especially with regard to legal threats, and especially when the threats are wiki-related and not something like an incidental car accident.

You called me an idiot for saying that the "so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia" part of this is new. I fail to recognize how you could come to a different conclusion when this should be a factual observation with no objective opinion to consider. It seems apparent to me that text was added and this idea was not in this page before. If I am missing some substance to your objection then please inform me. If you have anything more to say, then share, and thanks also for talking with me this far. At the village pump I intend to say that you and Slimvirgin are seeking policy changes and that I would like to maintain the status quo unless there is community consensus to change. I take the position that this is not a simple copyedit. Cool? You are not the first person to call me an idiot and maybe others will say the same thing. I looked hard to see what I am missing and I wish I knew how to understand what you are saying. I hope that you feel that I mean well and tried to reach out, even if I failed to communicate effectively. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

First, you are mischaracterizing the edits, which maintain the continuing view of the community on legal threats. It is far from a change in policy, instead it tightens the language to state the same thing that it has always stated. The problem is that you stated, above, that any lawsuit is grounds for a person to be blocked. If you misstate that at the Village Pump, I will point out the drastic change in policy that you are actually proposing. Off-wiki threats have not generally been actionable in the past, there is no need for the policy to be expanded in the way you propose so that they would be actionable now. GregJackP Boomer! 22:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP I fail to understand why you think I am changing policy. This page has been the same for a long time. Changes were made. I think some of the changes should be removed. I am not sure why you would say I am changing policy when I want this page to remain the same. Here is what I see -

Before recent edits, this page did not give information about combining legal threats and wiki
After the recent edits, this page gives information about combining legal threats and wiki

Which, if either, of these points do you see? It seems like you disagree with the first point. Can you help me see in the previous version of the page what you see about the circumstances when legal threats and wiki can mix? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This discussion needs focus—what text is proposed should be added (or re-added)? Why? Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, I'm confused about your concerns. If someone threatens you on Wikipedia with violence, and you call the police, you should not be blocked for doing that. The previous lead of this policy implied that you might be. The point of NLT is that legal threats should not be posted on Wikipedia, and the reason for the policy is to avoid the chilling effect such threats have on editorial work, not only against the person threatened but against everyone who reads the threat. Sarah ^(talk) 18:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin There are good and bad consequences to what you added. Yes, obviously, calling the police in response to danger is a case when it is okay for a Wikipedian to bring legal trouble into someone's life. Something else that your text permits is that Wikipedia contributors can post off-wiki threats and harassment against other Wikipedia contributors just so long as the threat is not on a Wikimedia website. You may be aware that some Wikipedia community members advocate that behavior off-wiki should not be judged on-wiki, while another perspective says that Wikipedia community members must comply with Wikipedia rules even off-wiki. I wish to avoid bringing that conversation into this page, which is why I oppose this addition. This is important page is stable, simple, and popular, I do not want to bring other complicating issues here without community discussion. The idea of granting exceptions to behavior off Wikipedia was not here before you introduced it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry, several issues are getting mixed up. Off-wiki threats, legal or otherwise, are tricky to handle, so it would be better to discuss them in another thread. Sarah ^(talk) 16:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to ping: Bluerasberry. Sarah ^(talk) 16:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is new text.

Editors involved in a legal dispute should not edit articles about parties to the dispute, given the potential conflict of interest.

That users are involved in a legal dispute with each other, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia.

I would like it removed pending discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious that someone involved in a legal dispute with the topic of an article should not edit that article due to COI? Editors should focus on encyclopedic content, not righting great wrongs by engaging in legal action off-wiki and "fixing" an article on a topic related to the legal action. However, the key point is "should not"—there may be exceptions which, per WP:BURO and WP:IAR, do not need to spelled out. Regarding the second point: if an editor were to sue Jimbo (making Jimbo involved in a legal dispute), should Jimbo be blocked? The page information link in the sidebar shows that plenty of people have been viewing recent developments, so the silence should be taken as consensus in agreement with the changes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the section on COI has nothing to do with encouraging legal threats, or showing sympathy to those involved in lawsuits. On the contrary, it says that one should not edit where, because of a legal matter, there is a COI. GregJackP Boomer! 03:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That sentence (don't edit articles about other parties) is from the BLP policy; it seemed sensible to add it here. Sarah ^(talk) 18:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Jonnuniq You asked what is obvious. It is obvious to me that you identified some positive consequences of a complicated policy change. I hope that you would be open to considering that complicated policy changes could have both positive and negative consequences, and if a policy change is new and sufficiently complicated then it is worth discussing before adopting it.

You said that you wanted focus. I have two objections - (1) a complicated idea was adopted here without discussion, (2) that complicated idea comes with negative consequences. The complicated idea is connecting COI guidelines to this NLT policy.

If I were to request focus, it would be for someone to confirm that including COI rules here is a new idea. GregJackP does not seem to be convinced that any new idea was even added, even though I think it should be easy to check the diff and older version. If there is a new idea added, then I would like an opportunity to consider the disadvantages of including this new idea before confirming its inclusion. I recognize that there are many advantages of adding it, but identifying some advantages does not dismiss the disadvantages and I think both pros and cons should be considered.

As SlimVirgin says, I think the idea added was pulled from the BLP policy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The sentence – "Editors involved in a legal dispute should not edit articles about parties to the dispute, given the potential conflict of interest" – was adapted from WP:BLPCOI. It is already policy and it makes perfect sense, so it was included in this policy too.

Again, several issues are getting mixed up. It would be better to discuss them in separate threads. Sarah ^(talk) 16:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. GregJackP Boomer! 20:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree completely with the addition of the edit Bluerasberry highlighted, above. COI edits should not be made, on-wiki harassment should not be tolerated, and people should be aware of on-wiki dispute resolution processes. That said, it isn't Wikipedia's job - in any sense - to interfere with (or, conversely, to promote) legal action. Criminality is a matter for the police, litigation for the civil courts; an encyclopedia is not competent to handle such matters, nor should it wish to. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Need to list actual legitimate alternatives

A lot of users (some unaware of the policy) may leave a credible threat on Wikipedia - meaning that they have a point somewhere with regards to the reason they are threating. Perhaps we should list how to contact WMF or even OTRS for various actual legal issues and issues with articles that may need to be handled through special accounts (such as DMCA requests, copyvios, etc.). Thoughts? Rjd0060 (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Text saying what to do was recently removed. Some people here say that because giving guidance will be controversial, then this policy should offer no guidance because anything controversial would compromise the value of this policy.

I think that I favor writing guidance elsewhere, then linking to it from here. Can you further describe what you would like to see? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The nutshell and lead of WP:No legal threats are short and include all that can be said. Adding more words to repeat that would not help. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Concur. GregJackP Boomer! 19:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think an additional hatnote pointing to meta:Legal could be useful - that page has the information for WMF's legal team, the address for DMCA requests, etc. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Philosopher A problem with that is that almost no legal threats get a response or acknowledgement from WMF legal, so that would not be helpful for 95%+ of cases. Johnuniq GregJackP Do you oppose the addition of more information on this topic in Wikipedia, or just oppose the addition of more information here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with it now, and no need to tell people every step that they must take. We can over-litigate policy to the point that we tell people how to do everything, killing the creative spirit of the project. GregJackP Boomer! 22:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I posted some guidance at Wikipedia:Crisis. I agree that this page is not the right place for guidance, but I support it being presented elsewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What

You say that legal action is reason for blocking. Is that to say that there is no legal repercussion, for the defamation that you (or your editors, which are, quite elegantly, not someone you can contact directly) made? Who can one contact, to wipe defamation text ? The anseer can not just be "we dont care and we dont know" ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.113.89 (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You can take any legal action you want. This policy just says that if you say you are going to take legal action or actually take legal action you can't edit here until the legal action is done. You should start on the article talk page. If that does not work then you can ask the volunteer response system to look into it. -- GB fan 19:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I kind of get whwat you're saying, but when Wikipedians are, willfully, repeating, in contract to being toldf thad it is defamatory, the texts, who should I sute? I mean, I can see a username of the offendig user, but from a user name, I can not gather a legal name, so who should I take legal action against? I cannot take legal action against Wikipedia (or?), and I cannot find the specific person who wrote the edit (and deleted my edits, thus the editor willfully and in bad faith, kept repeating untruthful claims), so what am I to do? Is Wikipedia just a random-persons-safe-house to "write whatever they like" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.113.89 (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to talk to a lawyer if you want to sue someone. They can explain what your options are, you will not get any legal advice here. -- GB fan 19:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Problem is, texts gets being deleted (even on talk pages) so I cannot prove in any way that the responsible editor has seen the text (since thet just delete it). I will see a lwayer, thanks for your time though. So Wikipedia has no default channel to deal with defamation (maybe I just thought that it happens on a regulr basis, and Wikipedia had a procedure for it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.113.89 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC) I have to ask, is Wikipedia not responsible ?for the pages? This sounds quite strange in my ears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.113.89 (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You can try Wikimedia Foundation's legal contact page. -- GB fan 19:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

blocking policy

Having just seen this "No legal threats" policy in action, I think the blocking policy ought to be softened a little, as I'll describe below.

The situation: some editors (a couple of IPs, and a newly registered user) add strongly worded opinions about Donald Trump. These are treated as vandalism and are swiftly reverted. However, another IP then pops up at the help desk and threatens to contact the Secret Service(!) I reassure them that the vandals are being reverted and may be blocked, but when I check back, I see that the complainant has been blocked for legal threats. There is some evidence that the complainant is not familiar with the workings of Wikipedia (given that their message at the help desk linked to the article by its URL rather than by using a link in wiki markup) so they can be reasonably assumed to have been unaware of this policy.

I believe that the administrator who issued the immediate block did so in accordance with this policy, inasmuch as the section on "Apparent legal threats" discourages an immediate block where the intent of a comment is unclear, which does rather seem to imply that if the intent is clear (even if the user is unaware of the policy) then a block is called for. However, the result is that the complainant is dealt with more severely than the vandals themselves, who are dealt with patiently until they have received several warnings. Whilst nobody wants to be editing under a "chilling effect", I don't think that the current situation does any good for the reputation of Wikipedia, in terms of dealing sympathetically with readers who raise concerns about inappropriate editing of biographies, even if they do so a bit excitably.

In view of this, I would like to see the following added to the policy, as I think it would provide an adequate mechanism for helping to keep legal threats off the site, while also avoiding blocking people for making threats before they are suitably informed of the policy.

If you see an editor make a legal threat on Wikipedia

Please make them aware of this policy, by posting a link to it on their talk page.

Then please either delete the threat (overriding any usual etiquette against editing other people's comments) or ask them via their talk page to retract it themselves.

Blocking policy

A person may be blocked for making legal threats if, after having been made aware of this policy, they either:

Make (or repeat) a legal threat, or

Perform other activity on the site while failing to comply with a request to retract a legal threat that they have already made.

What do you reckon?

I have said my bit and do not intend to return to this discussion, for reasons of time. If consensus is to make this or another change, then I will leave others to implement it.

Thanks, --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:THREATS

So I recently created Wikipedia:Threats to Wikipedia and would like to have the WP:THREATS shortcut point to it which as of right now points here. If there are not objections I'll change the shortcut and edit the few instances of where it was used.

--Fixuture (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixuture I will lightly object pending more discussion. NLT is one of the more popular policies and I think many regular wiki people hear "threat" and think of this policy. I think that WP:THREAT and WP:THREATS should go to the same place to avoid confusion. Both of those together make 100-200 uses, so this is not an unused shortcut event though WP:LEGAL and WP:NLT are the more popular shortcuts.

Is it necessary that you call the new page you made "threats" at all? The items on that list are different from the concepts on this page, and I wonder if calling them threats would be distracting in the context of this page already being so popular. Your page is about "existential crisis" or "continued existence of Wikipedia" or "Long life of Wikipedia". How sure are you that "threats" is the best title? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: But it's not as appropriate here as for that page. "WP:NLT" & "WP:LEGAL" fit much better. I don't think that it would make much sense to "think of this policy" when "hearing 'threat'" nor that many people do so. The "WP:Threats" shortcut has almost no uses at all and I'll change all the links once I changed the shortcut's target page. Imo it would only be fair and appropriate if I could change that shortcut. It's not even linked / listed here. As said it perfectly fits that page while it doesn't really fit here.

And I don't think renaming that page would be a good thing to do - "Threats to Wikipedia" is exactly what it's about. I could check the uses of the shortcut every now and then if you think that some people might mistakenly use that one when referring to WP:NLT.

--Fixuture (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixuture Fine, keep the name without change, but I am sure that I would like "threat" and "threats" to go to the same place. I have no opinion about where it goes, just so long as it is to the same place. Right now, both are going to this article "no legal threats". Feel free to propose a change if you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I weakly oppose. I think your essay is appropriately named, and I agree with you that THREATS more closely matches the essay's subject than the subject of legal threats, but it's not a good match for either. I think THREATSTOWIKIPEDIA would be a far more appropriate shortcut for the essay, and I propose that both THREAT and THREATS instead be changed to point at Wikipedia:Harassment § Threats—the first meaning that comes to mind when I think of "threats" here. Rebb ing 23:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rebbing: But "THREATSTOWIKIPEDIA" is way too long: that's not a "shortcut". --Fixuture (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure it is: it's still simpler to type than WP:Threats to Wikipedia, isn't it? There are many widely-used shortcuts that are of a similar length: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:ICANTHEARYOU each have thousands of usages. Rebb ing 00:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this a wikimedia wide policy?

Is this policy one of the wikimedia wide ones? Is it possible for a wiki to dispense from the "no legal threats"-policy if that is local consensus there?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything that indicates this is a Wikimedia policy. This as far as I can see is an English Wikipedia policy. If a different language Wikipedia does not have this policy, I think that is up to that community. ~ GB fan 22:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not know of any NLT policy on WMF-wide projects. Recent WMF initiatives are aimed at preventing harassment, and NLT can be a very pointy form of harassment. Something should be done to get NLT and HARASS promoted to WMF-wide policies because I have seen very severe harassment of mainly enwiki editors on other projects, including full outing of personal details. One very unfortunate WMF initiative is at WP:Wikimedia Strategy 2017, and a more reality based initiative is at WP:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia, although the lack of responses on the talk page would suggest that communication with the community will be one way. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't actually understand what this policy means

I saw the discussion link for Tryptofish's retracted proposal above, and noticed I really can't make sense out of the central core of this policy:

"a threat that refers to an external (real life) legal process (or governmental action)"

"Refers to" and "governmental action" both add a lot of blur, especially the former. Is here any agreement on some of the following situations as to whether the policy allows them or not?

"I think this .mpeg is obscene in Florida" (arguing for deletion)

"Having this quote from a Wikileaks cable makes this article less accessible to U.S. government users who aren't supposed to access classified information"

"I don't know about you, but I don't want to follow your cite about ceramic knives lest I end up on the no-fly list."

"In case you didn't know, in a lot of states cyberbullying is illegal now."

I understand that admins are supposed to clarify threats, but it seems like this policy casts a very wide net. If it is trusting that most of the time issues won't be raised about things said far too often, then is it also accepting that issues won't be raised when an actual threat is made? Wnt (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

None of these are legal threats: none of them can be interpreted as one user threatening to take legal action against another entity. They're just comments on legal situations, which are allowed. WP:NOLEGAL also exists, but that is not a guideline on what users can or cannot say on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I agree that none of those are legal threats, but I also think that it's perfectly reasonable to ask what Wnt asked. Which seems to me to be a good reason for my earlier proposal. I even think that some of those examples, if followed by some further related comments by the user who said them, could end up getting that user wrongly blocked. What may be clear to editors who have thought about the policy for a long time, may not be clear to editors in general. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Why not simply define what constitutes a legal threat and use examples? Better yet, what about Legal threat? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

However we do it, the issue comes down to the use of legalistic language not necessarily being a legal threat. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are written broadly on purpose; we cannot legislate WP:CLUE. One can grab things out of every policy and say "what does this really mean."

The intent of this policy is clear, and that is - that one user threatening another (or the project) with some kind of legal action is not OK, period. There is never a good reason to do it, and if you screw up and make an unambiguous one, or write something that sounds like one and are called on it you should a) strike it and apologize if you meant to make a legal threat, and b) if you didn't mean to make one, you should redact and clarify. It is not complicated. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No, we can't legislate clue, but when you say that "the intent of this policy is clear" and some other editors say that it isn't so clear to them, one should not assume that they are being clueless, or categorically decline to consider adding clarifications. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I was addressing Wnt's OP. As I said one can "interrogate" policies like this to no end. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say Wnt's inquiry was unreasonable. It's very reasonable, and a good question. Perhaps I should have said "none of them ought to be interpreted", but that doesn't change the meaning all that much. I'm with Jytdog on this one: we can't legislate clue, and furthermore we can't legislate how diverse editors should be expected or required to "feel" about any sort of comment. Asking questions is always good, I don't think that users popping in to say "what does this really mean" is a bad thing necessarily, and I don't think Jytdog meant to say that either. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think all of this discussion has been in good faith, all around. As should be clear from my having withdrawn my earlier proposal, I don't feel strongly about making such a change. But I did want to draw attention now to the fact that it is reasonable for editors to say that this policy is not as clear to them as it is to the regulars in this talk, and that I still see room here for clarification. But I can also accept consensus that it's clear enough as it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "clue" is people are supposed to get, but if I had a guess it would read more like the lede of Legal threat, "a statement by a party that it intends to take legal action on another party, generally accompanied by a demand that the other party take an action demanded by the first party or refrain from taking or continuing actions objected to by the demanding party." Now, in truth that is probably too narrow a definition for us -- legal action is apparently limited to "complaints" on forms, but an editor threatening to "email the FBI and see if you get put on the no-fly list" or "email [your government employer] and see what they think" or, of course, reporting someone to immigration, would presumably be foul of the policy anyway. Still, I suspect the policy as written could be more visibly limited to an actual threat to take action causing the government action in some way. Wnt (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I get that, but the "demand that the other party take an action" is often implied rather than expressed. "This is all libel and I'm going to sue." The biggest problem with legal threats isn't really the legal action (which is unlikely to happen), it is the chilling effect it has on others. Verbal terrorism designed to instill a fear of editing, leaving that individual alone to slash and burn the negative material. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm of the mind that misunderstandings and fear of getting blocked for saying the wrong thing leads to noncompliance with WP:CENSOR which may have an even greater chilling effect. Removing the ambiguities and/or giving clarity to a policy is worth what little effort is required for a win-win result. J/S --^{Atsme📞📧} 12:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I don't interpret the definition from legal threat to exclude cases where someone threatens legal action without demanding editors do something, even if it says that usually is the case. What I meant above was that our definition doesn't seem to exclude very vague statements like I started out with because it only says that the violator "refers" to a legal process rather than in any way claiming that he will do it. I understand this allows some obnoxious "someone could sue over this" language but we have and are apparently actually tolerating that language from editors already, assuming generally they don't mean they themselves will do so. Wnt (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The implied demand in "this is all libel and I'm going to sue" is if you don't do some action the person making that statement has requested separately or implicitly, such as agreeing with them in a dispute. It's rare for someone to just show up on a page out of nowhere and say only "I'm going to sue" with no context (though it does happen). It can be reasonably deduced that such a statement shows an intent to take legal action if the issuer's demands are not met, even if they have not actually made any demands (they could come later), or the demand is so vague ("fix it or I'll sue!") or impractical ("say the earth is flat or I'll sue!") as to be inactionable. But I do think our policy is specific (enough?) that it's a statement of intent to pursue off-wiki legal consequences that is forbidden, not merely discussion of what those consequences might be. For some of the other things that you've suggested, like contacting one's employer, we have the harassment policy, and there's no need for the two to overlap. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems like there may be a conflating of issues as it relates to an editor in good standing using creative terminology perceived as a legal threat vs a pissed-off BLP who wants information removed from his bio. The proposed changes address the former. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You know, the more this discussion goes on, the more that I wish that we could agree on a good way to make things clearer without creating adverse side effects. It seems to me that, conceptually, what we need to make clearer (to everyone, not just to those who already have thought it through) is that a legal threat differs from simply using legal language in that it is perceived by those reading it as being a threat or as being intimidating or as having a chilling effect. (And I would have no problem with also stating the importance of editors being careful that they not carelessly appear to make a legal threat when they don't intend it, and that they are responsible for communicating clearly.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah hah! Yes, remove the ambiguity that creates the trip trap. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

While asking everyone to please keep in mind that this is only a suggestion, I'd like to present this and see whether it might work better than the earlier proposals. For the lead paragraph, with changes shown in green:

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat that refers to an external (real life) legal process (or governmental action), not to a dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia, and does so in a manner that is perceived by others as threatening, intimidating, or chilling. Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. Editors should be careful not to make comments that could be misconstrued as legal threats.

Does this work? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I like this, I think you nailed it actually, but it's important that it addresses everyone else's concerns. For my part, I'd like to see it simplified to just "... refers to a real life legal process, not ..." without all the parentheticals and qualifiers. But it's not a deal-breaker for me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. About taking out the parentheticals, since they are already in there I'd rather not give people extra reasons to oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not right. By introducing waffle about "perceived by others" it becomes necessary for an admin to find an editor who has publicly affirmed that they feel threatened, intimidated or chilled. That is total rubbish—the community needs admins to prevent any hint of external retribution against others, regardless of whether a current victim can be found. A victim who already been threatened would have to describe how they feel and invite further external retribution. There is no need to change the policy at all. The underlying case involves a severely misguided editor who made absurd statements, and an over-enthusiastic admin who should have clarified just how absurd the statements were before blocking. Fiddling with words cannot prevent people finding ways to do the wrong thing. Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not basing this upon a single case, and I'm not fiddling with words – nor, for that matter, does this proposal weaken the policy in any way. But to the more substantive issue you raise, I would be OK with taking the "perceived by others" part out, and weighed whether or not to include it in the first place when I wrote it. But my thinking is that it strengthens the position of administrators rather than weakening it. It simply is not true that an admin would have to locate someone who complains. All the admin has to say is that they, the admin, perceive it that way. It can be anyone other than the threat-maker. And here is what I think is the best reason to include it: the user making the threat is likely to claim that no one in their right mind would think it was a threat, and they never intended it as a threat. That is, by far, what happens more frequently. But this language shuts down that gambit, because the reply becomes "you don't get to define whether it's a threat – it sounds to others like a threat, so case closed". I think this would actually be valuable in making things easier for admins who follow the policy, while also addressing the reason this is being discussed: that a legal threat is not the same thing as using legalese language. But, again, I'm receptive to taking that phrase out. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Something that does occur to me would be: "that is perceived ~~by others~~ as". In other words, leave "perceived" in but take "by others" out. That effectively means perceived by anyone, as opposed to by the threat-maker. (I also want to say that I'm doing this to address a lack of clarity, not to take "sides" in any recent incidents.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I think that is better:

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat that refers to an external (real life) legal process (or governmental action), not to a dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia, and does so in a manner that is perceived as threatening, intimidating, or chilling. Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. Editors should be careful not to make comments that could be misconstrued as legal threats.

--Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

That's more pointless fluff that would only invite wikilawyering—can you prove that my carefully worded allusion to external retribution was perceived as threatening? Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to prove anything. I just have to agree that what you said can be perceived as threatening, i.e. I myself perceive it that way. This is a good change: it does shut down the "nobody could really think I would actually sue" retro-defense, but also shuts down "he said libel, block him!" nonsense. FWIW this is how I apply the policy anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ivanvector, I appreciate that very much. Johnuniq, frankly you just sound very "Idon'tlikeit", and you obviously did not read where I said that I would be receptive to removing "perceived" as well, if there were really a consensus to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Suppose user X says something to Y, and Z says they perceive it as a legal threat. The claimed perception cannot be grounds for a block because the issue resolves around what X said. If an admin believes that X's statement was an attempt to threaten Y with external retribution (and X won't quickly withdraw), the admin should block X. The reason for the block is X's statement, not Z's perception.

@Tryptofish: The proposal introduces the possibility that X could threaten Y with external retribution and not be required to completely withdraw their threat because they managed to find wording which could be argued as failing the "threatening, intimidating, or chilling" test. Is that your intention? I want a prohibition of all threats of external retribution. Johnuniq (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Where you say that you want "a prohibition of all threats of external retribution", that's what the policy is about, and of course I'm not trying to change that. But if something is a threat of external retribution, then it's a threat, and that makes it "threatening". On the other hand, if it does not in any way threaten external legal retribution, then it is not prohibited by this policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Somewhere in there needs to be the concept of reasonable-ness. The standard can't just be that anyone at all perceives something as threatening or whathaveyou.
The proposed text doesn't distinguish a threat from a concerned warning. If someone says, "If you do X, I will set a process Y in motion", that's a threat; if someone says, "If you do X, I worry that someone might set process Y in motion", that's a concerned warning -- or is it a threat in disguise? One approach is to tell editors that their only job is to worry about keeping content within WP policy, letting WMF take responsibility for ensuring that policy protects WMF they way they want to be protected. But that only works for WMF's exposure; what about a fellow editor's exposure? A genuinely concerned statement from one editor to another -- "I hope you know that the Church of Scientology is notoriously litigious" -- are we going to forbid that?
Why are legal threats different from other kinds of "threats"? If someone says, "I'm going to tell a newspaper about this, and you/Wikipedia will be embarassed", that's not a legal threat. So is that OK? And if it's not OK, then why do we need a separate policy for legal threats, instead of just one for threats, period?
Is it OK to say, "If you keep this up, I'll take you to ANI"? What about "... sooner or later you'll end up at ANI"? Is the discussion between "external" and "internal" processes? If so, what is the point of such a distinction?
Why does withdrawing a legal threat make everything cool again? If an editor says, "I gonna kill your dog", we don't let him just say he changed his mind and then go back to editing like nothing happened. So why is a legal threat treated differently? If it really is a threat, it's bad behavior, period, whether withdrawn or not.

These are problems I've always seen with the legal threat policy, not specifically these proposals. E Eng 17:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I've seen much the same thing as what you describe, and I appreciate the observation. But the problem that I see lies in how one defines "reasonable" for the sake of Wikipedia policy. What seems reasonable to me might seem unreasonable to you. As a practical matter, the real definition is "whatever the blocking admin thinks is reasonable" – and there are an awful lot of editors watching this talk page who would immediately jump in to say that that's exactly what it should be. As has been said to me countless times, you cannot legislate cluefulness. So I'd rather not try. What I think is a better approach is to make the language of the policy (and any policy) sufficiently precise that it comes close to being idiot-proof. It seems to me that the current wording of the policy pretty much leaves out the concept that a legal threat is a threat, because so many editors think that it's self-evident. Consequently, I'm getting criticized for merely wanting to make clear that true legal threats are threats, or intimidating, or chilling of a discussion. Beyond that, I agree with you that you are raising issues that are more meta about this policy, and not really about the proposal here – which I would like to get back to. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I applaud your quixotic quest. I still think, though, that reasonable/reasonably should be inserted. Of course it's subjective, but it's still better to recognize that there's a criterion (subjective though it may be) than to leave the text facially implying that anyone's perception, no matter how oversensitive, is enough to trigger a block. So I'd change is perceived --> can be reasonably perceived. E Eng 20:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Policies generally handle reasonableness by prohibiting bad behavior without precisely defining what actions transgress the policy. Instead, the editor may be sanctioned if an admin or a community discussion reaches the conclusion that what the editor did violated the spirit of the policy. In other words, reasonable people have decided the action was bad. Johnuniq (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well then, we have some options here: (1) "and does so in a manner that is perceived as...", (2) "and does so in a manner that can reasonably be perceived as...", or (3) simply "and is...". What I'm proposing is number 1. I suspect some editors will object to number 2 on the grounds that reasonableness cannot be defined but can be wikilawyered. And I suspect that some editors will object to number 3 because it allows wikilawyering such as "but I said it, and I don't think that it was a threat" – which is actually something that the existing language leaves open as a possibility, but that number 1 shuts down. So my opinion is that option 1 is the middle ground that gets it right, but I'm willing to go with 2 or 3, one pole or the other, if that's what editors want. That's all on the table. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone want to express an argument for or against any of those options? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

option 1 is the clear intention. the reason we have this policy is to prevent editors from trying to make other editors perceive that they are under some legal threat. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Tryp - shouldn't there be some clarification that a discussion on a TP or noticeboard regarding BLP policy is not a legal threat - ...must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States - including discussions of "potentially libelous" material per the TP header: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.? Making others aware of licensing requirements per WP:FMERGE & WP:SMERGE should not be perceived as a legal threat. Also, advising an editor who attempts to plagerize specific material that doing so is illegal because it violates WP's licensing requirements should not be perceived as a legal threat. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree in principle with those points, but they absolutely cannot be squeezed into the lead paragraph, which is what I'm trying to discuss here. A separate discussion about the page section on "What is not a legal threat" is where that really belongs. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha - just wanted to get that noted while the neurons in the hippocampal region of my brain were still encoding both digital and analog information, despite the occasional misfiring. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you've been watching that, I see! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it helps to replace one vague term with three vaguer terms, so I'll take a stab:

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is an edit or other communication that threatens or reports that the sender may become involved in an external (real life) legal or regulatory process that would impact individual Wikipedia participants. This does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia. Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding.

Any better? Wnt (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it can get any better than that, Wnt. PERFECT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't use impact as a verb -- it exacerbates my embarrassing war wound. That aside, what about threats against WMF? And I still don't understand why all is forgiven if you withdraw the threat. Quite frankly if you're asshole enough to make a legal threat, WP doesn't need you. E Eng 14:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I was just looking at a picture of someone's impacted wisdom tooth. If it can be a past participle, why can't it be a verb? Wiktionary says it can be a verb [3] but that a few sensitive ears object to this case of verbification more than most, so it could be replaced by "affect". Since it is apparently a past particle of impingo I suppose "impinge upon" might be the "proper" grammar.

As for threats against WMF, I don't think this policy covers them now. It's about threats "on Wikipedia". True, it's possible the admins would not ignore someone who says they'll sue WMF if you don't revert an edit. Given the assurances I had above with my first questions, I was trying to clarify rather than change policy as much as possible (though clarifying implies making it more consistent, which is a change to some degree). So certainly my language could be replaced with "participant in any Wikimedia project" if this is what is desired. Wnt (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Replying to EEng about what happens after withdrawing the threat: First of all, if Wikipedia were to block everyone who is an asshole, there would be nobody left (except me).

But more seriously, the intent of this policy is actually not to prohibit unpleasant behavior. It's to prevent a situation in which one or more editors are editing while also taking part in an external legal process in which they are adversaries, because: awkward!!. In that sense, it's not so much the threat itself, as what the threat is expected to lead to. Once there is no longer a risk of a legal process, there is no longer the specific problem that this policy tries to prevent. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Two suggestions before I get into it: 1) omit "an edit or other": "is a communication that threatens" is concise enough; and 2) replace "may become involved in" with "intends to pursue" or some equivalent, as it needs to be clear in the lede that it's an editor making threats that is prohibited, not simply on-wiki discussions about potential legal consequences. Otherwise this opens up the "he said libel, block him!" nonsense again. As for why only legal threats, IMO it's because of the especially chilling nature of a threat to initiate a process likely to have lasting real-life consequences for those involved; this policy is anti-SLAPP, I suppose, in a real-world sense. Of course we want to also deal with other kinds of threatening and intimidating behaviour, that's why we have the civility and harassment policies. And as for an editor saying "I'll kill your dog", we have WP:EMERGENCY for that. Getting back to reasonableness (I'm late to this, sorry) we can't "legislate" reasonableness, it can only really be determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion. That's why we see so many threads come up at ANI about editors issuing legal threats: it's a bright-line rule that you can't make legal threats, but what is a legal threat is subject to some interpretation, and also why if you retract your threatening statement you get an all-clear under this policy (but not necessarily other policies: repeat offenders are likely to earn a WP:NOTHERE block). That's okay though, policies shouldn't try to cover every possible situation, and that's why we have an administrators' noticeboard. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Also every time someone in this discussion says "reasonableness" I just hear my old roommate yelling "BE REASONABLE!" at our cat. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I'll try to make my version a bit more perfect (that's for you, EEng :) ), taking the above into account:

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a communication by which the sender threatens or reports his intent to pursue an external (real life) legal or regulatory process that would affect individual participants in Wikimedia projects. This does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia. Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding.

Wnt (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll make some hopefully constructive suggestions next, but first, I want to say a strong "no" to using the word "intent". It opens up the exact kind of wikilawyering that we want to avoid here. The person making the threat will just say, "no, I never intended to actually take this to court, I was just telling the other editor what the problem was." It gives the ability to define whether or not it was a threat back to the threat-maker, which is something I was trying to shut the door on above. It effectively gives a green light to "idle threats", no matter how nasty. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't saying "I never intended to sue" in effect retracting the implied threat? That's kind of what we're going for, isn't it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Trypto I think you have gone too deep into the weeds here. The whole meaning of the word "threat" is wrapped up in intent. A threat is a statement of intention to take some action. What this policy is expresses is the community consensus that writing something that any reasonable person takes as a legal threat not OK. In other words - that expresses the intention to sue or call the cops or whatever. Just like threatening to go beat someone up is not OK. There is a big bright line there and all of it, is about making a real person feel like they are in some kind of danger in the real world.

I have written and erased the following several times as this discussion has gone on, and I will say it. This whole thing is ridiculous. I am far from the most civil person in WP and have gotten angry plenty of times, but even in my fiercest anger I have never run afoul of this policy. We don't make legal threats and anyone who does is clueless - that can be from naivete or arrogance, but it is clueless, regardless. This policy is a big bright line and once you see that, avoiding crossing it, is not even a little bit difficult. There is never a reason to use the tactic or language or metaphor of any sort of legal threat when you are in a dispute with another person in WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is what I was going to say before I got edit conflicts with you two. I hear what both of you are saying, but please take a look at this and see what you think. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

That said, I'll offer this as a revision of Wnt's proposal. I'm trying to keep the idea of how it leads to a legal process, instead of how it is seen as threatening etc., which I think is a good idea. But I'm also trying to bring back some of what I think worked better in my proposal, to get rid of "intent", and generally to tighten up the language:

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to initiate an external (real life) adversarial legal or regulatory process that would involve other editors. It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia. Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. Editors should be careful not to make comments that could be misconstrued as legal threats.

The language currently on the policy page says that the threat simply "refers to" such a legal or regulatory process, and I think that is a problem that this language would fix, by specifying initiation of a process as opposed to just referring to the process. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Yep, I agree. This is clear enough for a policy, and a policy needn't be any more specific than this. To Jytdog's point above (and others elsewhere) I also agree that editors shouldn't have to be told not to threaten to take legal action, but they keep doing it, so here we are. There's also the issue of say BLP subjects who see inaccurate or unpleasant information about themselves and threaten to sue if it isn't changed to their liking (we have WP:DOLT for that). (after ec) I wrote this before "adversarial", and before the comments below about Tony1. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of causing even more edit conflicts, let me explain about "adversarial". I'd be OK with taking it back out, but my thinking is that we don't want to prohibit someone saying something like "Instead of us discussing here whether or not to ban paid editing based on FTC rules, I'll write a letter to their public information line and ask what their policy means." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

let's go back to the Tony1 thing.

What people valued Tony1 for, was his use of language - many people commented during the blocking drama that they learned to write from his tutorials.

Please go read the dispute at Talk:Olympiacos Water Polo Club.

I have no doubt at all, that when Tony1 wrote "legal issues" he chose those words and knew exactly what weight they would carry to the person to whom he was speaking - he was sick of the person and was trying to be intimidating and chose the most intimidating words he could without actually saying "I will sue you", and reached for the legal threat language. I find his "I meant ANI, you idiot" to be ... ugly on just about every level. I do not think he should have been unblocked based on that, as it did not deal with what he clearly did wrong, and am dismayed with the entire reaction to his being blocked.

Dancing around to try to craft something so that Tony1 would not have been blocked for doing something that blatantly wrong, is wrong-headed. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not dancing with anyone, and I've said exactly a zillion times that I'm not proposing anything based on a single editor or a single incident. Please read what I actually proposed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I know you have said that. I have no doubt at all that the Tony1 incident is one of the incidents you have in mind.

If someone refers to an external legal process in a dispute with another user in a way that is threatening, this is a way to intimidate the other person. It is not good to get rid of that. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused, then. How does what I said "get rid of that"? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Because of what you wrote directly under your proposal. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you meant about "referring". It seems to me that the example with Tony1 was not just referring to a legal process, but would still be within the scope of what I said within the proposal. What I meant by referring is where someone gets blocked for simply talking about the legal implications of something, without making a threat. And, yes, there have been multiple problems with that, and yes, I'm not focused on Tony1 here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking more about what you said, and I think I ought to clarify better about the Tony1 issue. As I see it, what comes significantly from that incident is the language that was added, without controversy, a while back, about blocks not being urgent (second paragraph of the lead). To some extent, telling editors to be careful about not being misconstrued, is also directly relevant, but is really advice not to do what Tony1 did. On the other hand, the language about initiating a legal process really has very little to do with that incident, but rather is an attempt at more precise language that would avoid other problems that have cropped up repeatedly, where the use of legalese was not a threat. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking back to when I added the word "adversarial", it occurs to me that a better wording would be:

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to initiate an external (real life) legal or regulatory process that would involve other editors in an adversarial way. It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia. Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. Editors should be careful not to make comments that could be misconstrued as legal threats.

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts......in this context, is a threat to seek legal recourse in an "external" (real life) litigious manner in an effort to negatively impact other editors. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are getting at. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tryp, it was just different wording to more closely represent the legal issue - a little thought grenade. I went ahead and made a color distinction to make it easier, (I hope). ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see. I would be concerned that it doesn't address the issue of "I'm going to report you to this regulatory agency" that was raised by Tony Balioni a while back, that framing it in terms of effort raises the same issues of intention that I pointed out earlier, and that the language ends up being more circuitous without really providing any benefit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you added that last sentence - Editors should be careful not to make comments that could be misconstrued as legal threats. - when the opening sentence is Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. (In bold, no less). The message ends up being "Do not do x - (definition of x) - be careful not to do x". I'm thinking that the bright line rule of not making legal threats should remain and that asking editors to try not to make legal threats is unnecessary and softens the message. Regarding the other addition, I think this wording would be better as a threat to initiate an external (real life) legal or regulatory process that would target other editors. It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia. I don't think the adversarial part is necessarily needed and I prefer "target" to "involve" other editors. To me, a legal process first targets someone before involving them. I'm not married to this language, though, and I'm sure there's something better. Honestly, I think no matter what language is used, people will wikilawyer around it, so finding the right words is really hard. I appreciate the work you're putting into this. Ca2james (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, which I appreciate a lot. And I agree with you about "target" – that's better than what I had. I would still push for that last sentence, though. It's the difference, a significant one in my opinion, between making an actual legal threat, and just saying something careless when one does not intend a legal threat. We've had issues of over-eager blocks of editors who were just using legal language but not intending a threat (and I'm not referring to Tony1 there). One side of that is the language added several weeks ago, about communicating with an editor before blocking, language that is thankfully not controversial. That's from the administrator's perspective. But there is also the angle of the editor who might get blocked. Editors sometimes are just plain careless about what they say, with consequent needless drama. Admittedly, it's telling users to be clueful, but I would defend it as providing some support for a blocking admin who can tell the blocked editor "what you said was stupid, if you didn't intend it as a threat, because it sure sounded like one". And in any case, this is something that is discussed at greater length lower down on the policy page, so I'm just summarizing it in the lead, rather than adding something completely new. But again, I agree about "target", so:

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to initiate an external (real life) legal or regulatory process that would target other editors. It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia. Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. Editors should be careful not to make comments that could be misconstrued as legal threats.

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I also don't like that last green sentence. The problem with it is that it would appear to make comments misconstrued as legal threats against this policy, which is to say, it pours back in all the bathwater I just tried to separate from baby. A comment misconstrued as a legal threat is no threat provided the point is clarified, and if the point isn't clarified, we don't know it is misconstrued... either way, we need no special text about it. Wnt (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I also think we need to tread carefully with the misconstrued language because it opens another can of wikilawyering worms. I see that we're trying to say something about avoiding even the appearance of making legal threats; I think there's a strong case to be made for putting that sort of thing in a guideline (ie a place describing how the policy is interpreted... Where community norms are described, as it were) rather than in a policy. I'm trying to think of a replacement for the sentence in green but I'm coming up empty. I'll think about it overnight. Ca2james (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This being the case, I'd rather remove that sentence than to hold the rest of this up. By way of further explanation, WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats is a longstanding section of the policy page, and I thought that the proposed sentence was simply summarizing and emphasizing what it said there. I also see value in making clear to users that it's important not to be careless about making comments that could be perceived as threats. So if there is another approach, perhaps saying something lower down in the lead section, I would be interested in that. But I'll also agree with just leaving it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I think, then, in the interest of settling this, that removing the sentence and leaving the lede saying simply "do not make legal threats", with supplementary explanation in the body or a separate guideline/essay, is fine. The threat (sorry, couldn't think of a better word) of being blocked for noncompliance ought to encourage users to be cautious. If it doesn't, well then that's another one of those things we can't legislate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there is consensus to omit that last sentence. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but it sounded like you are saying to make no change, which I find surprising in the context of the rest of this discussion, and which I would oppose for all of the reasons that I and others have raised. In other words, what I see as now on the table is:

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to initiate an external (real life) legal or regulatory process that would target other editors. It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia. Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding.

This language, describing initiation of a process, seems to me to be clearly superior to the existing language, that simply says referring to such a process. It is significantly clearer in terms of making a threat as opposed to simply tossing around legalese language, which if nothing else is just better writing. For comparison, here is the existing language:

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat that refers to an external (real life) legal or regulatory process, not to a dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia. Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding.

I think the proposed language, with the green text, is superior to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the proposed text works. There's still potential for wikilawyering from people who don't come out and actually utter a legal threat but who word things more carefully, relying on context to convey the threat. But I suspect that editors who make the more subtle kind of threat are likely to wikilawyer no matter what the specific wording in this policy. Ca2james (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, late to the party again; I've been checking in and out of this and didn't catch your last reply to me. No, I didn't mean to make no change, I was just referring to the last sentence being redundant, and I thought I read somewhere upthread talk of changing the bold text. 100% support this change, and thanks for all your work on this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Simplify - how about "No f'ing legal threats! Don't know what that means? Figure it out!"^[FBDB] Sorry, couldn't resist. 100% support of the change. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

Hmmm, the problem with just "initiate" there is that it doesn't include when someone says they already have filed a suit or sent your doxx to the local basij. This is the first sentence of the top-level NLT policy, so you have to cover that lest anybodies get some unfortunate loopholes into their no doubt highly legal minds. Wnt (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that's one of those admin discretion things. Wikipedia is not a moot court; an editor who says they've already filed a suit isn't going to escape being blocked on the technicality that they're not "threatening" to "initiate" it. Any admin who believes that logic shouldn't hold the bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If the admins can be trusted to do whatever is right, even when the policy is written wrong, it seems unnecessary to have or change policy. We can just tell them to go out there and wing it. Except ... even there you have the whole Roman Twelve Tables idea that if the population knew what the law was it might be easier for them to follow it. In the scenario above I was mostly concerned that editors might read this and think they should claim to have started -- or, God forbid, actually have started -- processes as a way to avoid being accused of "threatening" them. Wnt (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point. What if, instead of "A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to initiate an external (real life) legal or regulatory process that would target other editors." that sentence read "A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to involve targeted editors in an external (real life) legal or regulatory process.? This sidesteps the "but I've already started proceedings; I'm not threatening to start them hahahaha" wikilawyering. I'm not totally sure about the "involve targeted editors" wording but it's something to start with. Ca2james (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I do think this is getting into the absurd a little bit, but I don't oppose this tweak. I don't think it's solving an actual problem, but I also can't see how it would create new ones, so sure, go for it. I would replace "targeted" with "other" ("target" implies a certain kind of threat), or just take the word out completely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I, too, see this as gilding the lily, but I guess I can see the value of getting away from "initiate". But if it "involves" other editors, it would go without saying that they have been "targeted", and "targeted" just sounds odd in this construct. So, in agreement with Ivanvector, I would not object strongly to a threat to involve other editors in an external (real life) legal or regulatory process. (That's changing "targeted" to "other".) Now, that said, I think there's a quibble about "involve" as the verb choice, because one could theoretically involve others as being on the same side as oneself. So then we would need a different verb to convey the adversarial nature of the situation. To "target" editors "for" it doesn't work. And to "entangle" them "in" it doesn't either. So I think we have two options, each pretty good but slightly flawed: (1) "initiate" (what it says now), with a small problem when it was already initiated, or (2) change to "involve", with a small problem of not all involvement being a threat. I think it's a coin-toss. But also, I'm not convinced that there really is ever a situation where a legal process was initiated first, and then editors would somehow be added later – and saying "I've already started to sue you, but I'm announcing it now" is so obviously not a get-out-of-jail card that it doesn't matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I just thought of something: a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or regulatory process that would target other editors. That covers everything, I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That works for me. Ca2james (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there consensus to do it this way? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I like that wording. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

These tweaks are significantly extending the policy. I'm going to revert some of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Next time, perhaps you would contribute to the talk page discussion before other editors come to believe that there was no objection. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

How about giving this page a rest for three months. In 2016 there were 12 edits to this talk page. In 2017, there were 26. In the first 60 days of 2018, it's been 241. There is no reason for a well-established policy to have such turmoil. Johnuniq (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you poooor baby! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)