Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:02, 24 March 2008

Archives

February 2007

systematic vs. systemic?

In the line "Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systematic bias in our articles," I think the word systemic would be more appropriate. Systematic gives the wrong impression, whereas systemic implies a widespread, total bias. Just a suggestion. --HubHikari 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd be surprised if the author of that bit didn't mean systemic; WP:CSB is commonly misread as countering systematic bias. I'll have a look through the history to see who added it. Trebor 23:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, maybe I was wrong; it was "systematic" in the original version. I think changing it makes sense. Trebor 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --HubHikari 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Passive but intimidating legal FYIs

We sometimes have users who invoke the spectre of a lawsuit against the editor, without actually saying, "I'll sue you." The spectre may be in the form of, "The police will track you down for putting up obscene photos" or "Did you know that the person you are writing about could sue you for defamation?" It has been pointed out that these comments may a method of intimidating the recipient. I've seen at least two examples on AN/I in the past six weeks, and seen one other that didn't get escalated at all. How should they be dealt with? Kla'quot 05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Veiled threats are nevertheless threats. The examples you give are, at the least, treading a fine line between what is and is not acceptable, and it would not be surprising if, in the right circumstances, such comments led to a block (particularly the first one). Remember that the blocking policy comprehends blocks for not only legal threats, but personal or professional threats if they are "in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user". To a degree what is decisive is the tone of what is said, more than the substance.

My advice to people who feel the need to give FYIs about legal matters is that civilly worded ones are probably OK, but keep in mind Raul's fourth law, consider using places like Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems rather than opening your mouth and leaping to conclusions, and be very careful not to say things that could be seen as attempts to intimidate. --bainer (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please try to draw a clearly visible line between "veiled threats" of litigation, and merely mentioning the possibility of litigation as something to be guarded against? In light of the Siegenthaler case, for example, the possibility of libel litigation when WP:BLP is violated continues to be very real. We need to look out for the best interests of Misplaced Pages. Editors need to be able to alert other in good faith regarding possible libel and copyright problems, without being accused of making legal threats.

For example, I've recently been chastised for having the following notice on my User page: "My entire purpose here is to protect Misplaced Pages from being sued for libel, and Misplaced Pages administrators understand that." Is that a veiled threat? I'd like to hear a consensus on this issue, please. Dino 16:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's not have everybody speak up all at once. Dino 18:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the easiest way to get a response is to suggest changing the policy. How about this:

Veiled legal threats and harassment

No Legal Threats is a bright line policy and refers to clear indications that the person making the statement intends to pursue or co-operate in a real-life claim against another person or corporation.

However, other statements about negative consequences to other users in real life are often uncivil, depending on the tone and context, and may lead to a block.

The following are examples which do not constitute legal threats, but are uncivil.

• "Did you know that the police can track you down for putting up obscene photos?"
• "For your own sake, stop posting this information or person X could sue you for defamation."
• "Your employer will find it very intersting that you have created this article."

Comments referring to real-life consequences for specific editor(s) are intimidating to the recipient and may be seen as an incitement for other readers of the comment to take legal action. Such comments are strongly discouraged on Misplaced Pages. Remember that the blocking policy comprehends blocks for not only legal threats, but personal or professional threats if they are "in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user". To a degree what is decisive is the tone of what is said, more than the substance.

If you feel the need to give FYIs about legal matters, civilly worded ones are probably OK, but keep in mind Raul's fourth law, consider using places like Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems rather than opening your mouth and leaping to conclusions, and be very careful not to say things that could be seen as attempts to intimidate.

Please consider the above a rough proposal for further discussion, refinement, or outright rejection ;) Kla'quot 08:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the need to give FYIs about legal matters, civilly worded ones are probably OK ...

And in the specific instance I've cited? Dino 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The specific instance you cited is a legal threat, and according to WP:BLOCK the user can be blocked from Misplaced Pages by an administrator: veiled threats are, nevertheless, threats. anthonycfc 00:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think this is needed. We recently had at least two separate instances on ANI where people said things like "posting X about Y is libel unless it is well sourced" and were reported for violations of {{WP:NLT]]. In both cases, the broad consensus was that this was not a legal threat, and in the case that a block was made, the block was undoen by the blocking admin on hearing this consensus. In fact I would say that statements of that form are almost never legal threats unless the person makign them is the person allegedly defamed. Indeed of the example statemetns you give, i think only thee thrird is a probable threat. of course, civility should be maintained at all times, but WP:CIVIL alrady says that. DES 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Veiled legal threats ???

• What is the policy regarding veiled legal threats??? Specifically with regard to COFS (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu) -- DIFF 1, DIFF 2, DIFF 3, DIFF 4. Don't these DIFFs represent exactly what you all were talking about above? Users skirting around this policy by making veiled legal threats ?? Clarification here? Smee 01:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Please excuse Smee. She is hunting me since a week with a variety of allegations (and not only me). But the question is: Am I allowed to warn editor that he might get in trouble with somebody not connected to me? Like an editor who is about to get in trouble for copyright violations, or having slander suits mustered up against him? Do I have this responsibility or should I watch him going down? COFS 01:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what COFS (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu) should not do, and the user knows better. That is precisely why this policy was put into place: Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles. Smee 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Guys! Cool it! First of all, remain civil and respect WP:NPA. Now, a legal threat is a legal threat - veiled or not; that is my reading of the policy. Furthermore, making legal threats is grounds for an indefinite block from Misplaced Pages, according to this exerpt:

Hopefully this clears the matter up.

Kind regards,
anthony 03:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, you guys need to cool it, but I don't see anything from COFS that I could consider either a legal threat or incitement for someone else to take legal action. I think COFS has already made it clear that he or she has no intention to take any real-life action against another contributor, so there is no grounds for a block. Kla'quot 05:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion in good faith about issues like the copyright status of materials added to Misplaced Pages is certainly permitted; what is not permitted is threats of legal action. There's none of the latter here, rather an attempt at the former, although it would certainly be preferable in the future not to say things to the effect of "you might get sued by someone for this". --bainer (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have said "we might get sued". As in we, the project. Because if any of the involved editors are not here working for the project then they should go start their own website to do their complaining about Misplaced Pages. Complain here only if your complaining is in the direction of improving the project and taking the Scientology series articles out of the hands of "anti-Scientology" hijackers and giving them back to the encyclopedia. I think that "we" would have been a better way to put it. --Justanother 14:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Same warning 4 times = ?

There is a related discussion going on about this issue on WP:ANI, so to anyone familiar with it I apologize for repeating myself but I'm curious to know if this could be a sort of veiled legal threat by repeated suggestion of general legal "trouble".

The suggestion that trouble could result from one's actions is either meant as a genuine warning or an attempt to intimidate the person being warned.

COFS could very well be right, but unless he/she mentions some specifics they could also just be raising the idea to discourage content he/she doesn't "like". The first mention of the warning and the first reiteration could be forgiven for not providing specifics. By the third or fourth they should have realized the warning was not being heeded with the information provided.

• COFS: WP:Fair use warning to Fahreheit451. I am not a lawyer, but I've seen people getting in trouble for less that your two new articles (or better: copy and paste of LRH materials). 18:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Warning
• COFS:Here I come along, save you legal costs by giving you prior warning and you say what? 22:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Reiteration of warning without specifics of "I've seen people getting in trouble " aspect of warning.
• COFS: Ok, harm yourself, get toasted. It's your right, who cares. Further reiteration of warning w/o specifics.
• COFS: I am alerting F451 that he is going to harm himself. Third reiteration of warning, essentially COFS is saying "Negative consequences will follow if you don't listen to my warning, I've seen it happen." but isn't saying what happened, when this was, who was involved, etc.

I think the line between helpful warning and ambiguous legal threat is crossed by repeating a threat of legal "harm" from unknown parties without an attempt to explain one's concerns. This is especially true when the editor issuing the warning is asked for but does not give said specifics. (Those being items like court cases, diffs from here, or anything showing people getting into trouble as described by COFS in his/her warning.) Anynobody 06:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There were no legal threats made there. COFS didn't threaten to take legal action. But the suggestion of trouble is not conducive to a loving environment and that sort of expression should be avoided. A better expression would be something along the lines of "I think that this content is a copyright violation because it's copied from X", or "I think that this doesn't meet the fair use policy because of X, Y and Z". --bainer (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Thebainer. Those are certainly veiled legal threats, and they should stop. Rewording a legal threat in the passive voice or the third person doesn't mean it's not a threat. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the sort of thing people come out with when they think "hmm, I wonder how I can intimidate someone without getting hit by the no legal threats policy". Clear veiled threats. --Sam Blanning 17:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How to report legal threats?

I'm unable to find how to report legal threats. Help please? --Ronz 19:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You want WP:AN/I. Good luck. :) Kla'quot 06:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz 15:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

historical

Hi, has there been any sue to wikipedia by a user before?--Andersmusician VOTE 04:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

New redirect: WP:SUE

I just created a new redirect for this at WP:SUE, which I thought would be helpful. I didn't overstep any boundaries, did I? I just thought I would mention it here in case I had done something wrong, and also to bring attention to the redirect in case anyone wanted to use it. --Dreaded Walrus 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Description of legally risky behavior

I propose that the description of legally risky behavior, e.g. tort, is not deemed to be or overstretched to be equivalent to a threat. The description of risky behavior in this context should also be handled as a good faith attempt to talk about resolve opportunity in substitute to a threat. --Eurominuteman 12:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose we advocate software piracy since we can't make legal threats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.240.236.8 (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Threats made on another's behalf

Should we clarify that conveying someone else's legal threat still has an intimidating effect and, as such, is still a legal threat according to this policy? This edit warns that another person is pursuing legal action. I wondered if it was specifically worded this way, so that the person could use "it is someone else who is pursuing legal action" as a loophole. The editor did try this in an unblock request (which was denied). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to be careful about wording that, though. Because the line between doing that to attack or establish control and doing it to inform isn't all that clear. -Amarkov moo! 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Where to report violations?

Where should a violation of this policy be reported?--99.229.206.61 17:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:ANI. Hut 8.5 17:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A question about "the legal threat"

Well, the law is a legal threat by itself too actually. It threatens you to not do things etc.

Yet I'm wondering and trying know this: Let's say; a child rapist posts his pictures while raping a 3 year old kid. Meanwhile let's say he writes an article about it; or writes a section such as "criticism of sexual behavior" and adds that; for some it is normal to rape children.

As a user; -let's say- my child was raped several months ago. If I complain to WP:AN about this person; and tell that this person should face criminal court and anyone who doesn't do anything against is as criminal as he is.

On this case; what I do is a legal threat or not?

Thank you.

Onur --Nerval 07:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No. You didn't threaten legal action. However, it'd be irrelevant to wikipedia, and probably would be blockable for other reasons. ⇒SWATJester 07:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant; what if it happened? What are the other reasons to block ? Thanks. --Nerval 22:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone would remove his pictures as they do not assist in writing an encyclopedia.

Someone would remove his comment that "for some it is normal to rape children" as lacking a citation.

Someone would remove his article about his rape crimes as they are not encyclopedic. (not notable or verifiable)

Someone would contact a local law enforcement agency and ask them to investigate.

If you said "anyone who doesn't do anything against {user} is as criminal as he is." that might be a legal threat in my opinion. Certainly it is not a civil thing to say. Instead, I would advise contacting WP:AN and describing the situation in a calm, matter-of-fact tone. You could also help Misplaced Pages by performing the actions I've listed above. Martin 23:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV: Uncivil

Why is making a legal threat uncivil? I disagree with this wording. It is possible that a person might have gone through dispute resolution, was unsatisfied and now needs to go through legal channels.

It also is much more civil to legally handle things versus retalitory hacking, or finding where someone lives and punching them in the face.

Please reword or give rationale for wording. Guroadrunner 04:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If they need to go through legal channels then they should go through legal channels; that is not disputed. This policy is addressed against threats of legal action. --bainer (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A threat of any kind is, by definition, uncivil. While varying degrees of incivility exist, legal threats are by their very nature uncivil, if for nothing else but the intimidating and chilling effect that they are intended to have, ipso facto.⇒SWATJester 07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This policy is addressed against threats of legal action -- ahhh... lightbulb just went off. Now I get it better than I had understood. I might reword to give "threaten legal action" more prominence. Guroadrunner 08:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Brevity is more important than neutrality in policy space, so I removed the word "considered". I tried a different way to increase clarity. Martin 12:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Off-wiki threats

Would this policy apply to a legal threat made outside of Misplaced Pages? Example: One Wikipedian sends another Wikipedian an email containing a legal threat, and concerning a Misplaced Pages matter. Just wondering. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• According to my understanding of this, doing that should also be covered by this policy, or at least "No personal attacks", would cover it. VivioFateFan 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Such policies are non-enforceable off-wiki. If the user has legal threats off wiki but are related to wikipedia, direct them to info-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org and have them email OTRS, or consult your own attorney. ⇒SWATJester 07:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider this case.

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive323#Concerns_over_legal_action_in_the_US_chess_community._.28User:Sam_Sloan_et._al..29

User Sam Sloan is suing other individuals (one of which is another Wikipedian) for libel, among other disputes, of which is primiary (not exclusively) off-wiki. An admin blocked Sloan for legal threats. Opinion is needed as the guideline is not designed to handle this situation. SYSS Mouse 20:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Take this into case...

If an user continues to upload a copyrighted image that cannot succeed the Fair Use Rationale, and evades his or her ban to if he or she becomes blocked. Is it nessesary to take legal action under witness or company? Reply on my talk page. Ellomate (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(Also replied on user's talk page.) I think it would be up to the copyright owner to take legal action against the uploader. Misplaced Pages would probably simply block the account(s) to prevent further infractions. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Two questions

1. What if someone has a good reason to make legal threats? For example, real life harassing of another Wikipedian. If you block someone for legal threats when he has a good reason to make legal threats, you may make him angry and make him actually sue Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages has no money to fight in court.

My understanding: If he needs to sue, then he needs to sue and he's free to do so. I think the point is to leave Misplaced Pages out of it, and to stay away until the legal proceedings are complete (or dropped etc.). I imagine Misplaced Pages has its own channels for dealing with harassment (perhaps WP:AN/I). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

2. What if someone says something that others misunderstand as a legal threat? For example, A tells B that he wants to sue C. B tells C that A wants to sue him. Then B gets blocked for making a legal threat. Or D does something on Misplaced Pages that could get him in legal trouble, and E tells D that he could get into legal trouble. Then E gets blocked for making a legal threat.

--Kaypoh (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding: Again, if 'A' needs to sue, then 'A' needs to sue. As legal threats have a chilling effect, then 'B' is at fault for posting the threat on Misplaced Pages. 'A' can go about his legal business as he pleases, there's no need for 'B' to bring it up on Misplaced Pages. One purpose of this policy is to counter the chilling effect. 'E', I think, is kind of in a grey area. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To both of you: you may want to read the case of User:Sam Sloan I posted above. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Withdrawal of legal threat"

I've added the small section on withdrawal, that was written for (and supported at) Village Pump

I think it's important; in the spirit of the project we need to make clear (lest it be misunderstood or someone ask in future) that blocking is for reasons of preventing future disruption and issues, and not punitive, and that once the community agrees these are credibly no longer an issue (or that good faith should be extended) the previous status quo can be reinstated. I've also retitled the existing section to a more helpful title but not otherwise changed its text.

Hopefully this is pretty much communal understanding and consensus and agreeable. FT2 12:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think the section does not read easily, but at the moment I don't see how I would rework it. I do think it needs rework. —Christian Campbell 21:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-17 Werner Erhard

• Per Misplaced Pages:No legal threats "If you do choose to take legal action, please refrain from editing until it is resolved and note that your user IP or account may be blocked." -- Does this still hold true for legal threats made over OTRS, or are individuals immune from the Misplaced Pages:No legal threats policy if they make legal threats over OTRS, and not on Misplaced Pages itself? For more on this issue, please see Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-17 Werner Erhard, and in particular this Diff. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

DMCA take down notices not covered under NLT?

I just read this, and with no comments about Durova or the case, or whether she did or didn't send a takedown notice. In general: why would NLT not cover DMCA take down notices? If I found some of my writings were posted to Misplaced Pages in violation of my copyrights, and sent a proper takedown notice to Misplaced Pages, that is a legal threat. "I intend to sue if you don't take down my work, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a right I have as an American to take against an American entity." Issuing a takedown is a legal threat if done. Why would it be exempt here?

If you read this section of the OCILLA article, which details the DMCA takedown process, its clearly a pure legal threat. "Take down my content, or a lawsuit follows." • Lawrence Cohen 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

NLT states that "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat". If you are the owner of copyrighted material which has been inappropriately added to Misplaced Pages, a clear statement about whether it is licensed for such use is welcome and appropriate. You may contact the information team, contact the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent, or use the procedures at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems." NotLawyer (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's different from a DMCA takedown notice. If I'm an author of a novel, and I find a page that has Chapter 10 of my book reprinted whole, I can post and say, "Please take this down, its copyrighted by me," but I'm not suing. If I instead send an actual DMCA takedown notice to WP's designated agent by e-mail (allowed), postal mail, or courier, thats a whole different can of worms that involves threatened and legally implied pending ligitation. Even threatening a DMCA takedown is not good as you're invoking a right to sue and use Federal law to protect your interests at the liability of another party (the WMF). • Lawrence Cohen 16:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Dear Wikimedia Designated Agent - My name is Not Lawyer, and I live at 123 Anywhere Road, Springfield, IN. You have taken chapter 10 of my work "The Cockroach" and placed it on your website at "http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_legal_threats/chapter10". It is my good-faith believe that your copying of my chapter is not legally licenced for you to copy there. As I am the owner of the copyright, I state under penalty of perjury that I have the right to act for myself. Sincerely, Not Lawyer." No threat to sue. NotLawyer (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

NotLawyer is correct. A notice of infringement and demand for take-down does not inherently include a legal threat⇒SWATJester 02:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree. Notifying WP of your copyright and asking them to take something down and ever quoting the relevant laws is not a legal threat. If a threat of legal action was included then we would need to prevent them from doing so on wiki. 1 != 2 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about "See also" link to "meatball:LegalThreat"

When I click the referenced link to meatball:LegalThreat, I get an HTTP 500 - Internal server error. I can get the Home Page, but not the link.

If this is neither a transient issue nor an issue specific to my own Internet access, then this link needs either to be corrected or deleted. Please advise if you see the same problem. Thanks. Art Smart (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This link now seems to be working. Thanks to whomever fixed it. Art Smart (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The picture

I am wondering whether we should use the picture of the court building. Its caption reads, "A court of law in Trenton, New Jersey — one of the many courts in which you may not threaten to sue another Wikipedian," which isn't true at all - anybody may sue anybody, whether they can talk about it on Misplaced Pages is another question. I know it's a question of wording but do the picture and caption really help? I really don't see much use (nor humor) in it. Having said that, I did like the previous picture of the lawyer(?) with the red circle and slash. My $0.02, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the image and its caption. Someone had just changed the caption but I still don't see how it is of any real use. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The image is a reference to an (in)famous former user who threatened to SUE people in a COURT OF LAW in TRENTON, NEW JERSEY. As in-jokes go it's a humourous one, but I don't think it has much use here, on a policy page whose target audience is largely going to be outsiders who can't appreciate in-jokes. --bainer (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, I think one has to resort to a threat of legal action if nothing else works to resolve one's complaint. I tend to see alot of the policies of Misplaced Pages as being legally questionable at best, and I'd be sure a court of my state would concur if a Misplaced Pages policy was contested here. Courts don't always mandate you exhaust internal remedies if you can show they either don't exist or they are patently ineffective as a remedy. That is legal precedent in state and federal courts. In many cases, I notice the Misplaced Pages internal affairs processes too often side with a complainant against a respondent party. I'd advise those users unfairly treated in their opinion by the arbitration committee or by any administrator to bypass internal remedies and go straight to taking judicial action against Misplaced Pages. I think a court of law and equity would give you a much more fair hearing than an internal hearing here, and you'd more likely succeed against this place. I'd bet my state's courts would hand down some harsh judgments against this site if it came up, especially at the appellate levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.172.131 (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"On wikipedia"

The page says in a couple places "Don't make legal threats on Misplaced Pages." It says this in a high-profile enough way that I think it's confusing. Such threats are most likely to be seen on Misplaced Pages, but if they are made off-wikipedia, such as in email or on an external website, or even simply through legal channels, the reasons for blocking still absolutely apply. Could we change that phrase to "Don't make legal threats concerning problems on Misplaced Pages", or something like that? Any ideas? Mangojuice 02:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this wording is problematic, and I definitely dont like the idea that editors can email a legal threat to bypass the fundamental principle that productive editing should be enjoyable; we have mediation venues to deal with occasions when it isnt fun. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is true that if someone is taking legal action, or threatening to take legal action against another Wikipedian, regardless of the venue, they need to stop using Misplaced Pages until it is resolved. This wording does need to be addressed. _(1 == 2) 14:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no where that you can claim such, nor is there any ability for you to enforce such. If someone was to take legal action against Jimbo, for example, you cannot claim that he would not have the right to edit, and you could not then say that only one party in the legal action cannot edit. The rule stands to remove legal threats from Misplaced Pages, so Misplaced Pages itself is not used as evidence or part of a judiciary proceedings. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely the spirit of the policy. If someone tries to take legal action against one of our members, yes we do prevent them to edit. Nobody has the "right" to edit. I have made an edit in that direction.

While my change clarifies things it does not change the policy itself as it has always said "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Misplaced Pages until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels". We do deprive people of editing privileges(not "rights") when they make a legal threat on or off Misplaced Pages in Misplaced Pages related matters. _(1 == 2) 14:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that you cannot prove that someone took legal action without it being on Misplaced Pages, thus, you cannot have any reason to even prevent someone from editing. Hence it needs to be "on Misplaced Pages". SwatJester has already answered to this question above. Why contradict him when he spoke quite clearly on what to do? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, Until, but the policy clearly deals with Misplaced Pages and not Wikipedians except as they are users on Misplaced Pages. Thus, your edit is improper. You lack a consensus to make such a dramatic change, and I suggest you go to village pump if you wish to form such. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In most cases, the only way that a user will be legitimately able to deliver any kind of legal notice to another user will be via email, typically via Special:Emailuser, either that or solicit alternative contact information via email. The prohibition is against public threats. --bainer (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So what if in some circumstances we can't prove it? In others cases we will be able to prove it. The change I made that you reverted Ottava did not change the policy, it only clarified what it already says. It already says that if you make legal threats involving Misplaced Pages outside of Misplaced Pages that you must stop editing.

It was not a dramatic change. We don't need the village pump to clarify the wording of a policy to better reflect what it already says. If you have a better wording to deal with the issue I would like to see it, but you are really the only person objecting. _(1 == 2) 15:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion that it was not a great change does not reflect a consensus of the community nor does it reflect English grammar rules. Misplaced Pages is not Wikipedian. "on Misplaced Pages" is quite specific to being on. Two other administrators have already stated in opinion, one above in an earlier entry and one directly above state that it deals exclusively with on Misplaced Pages. The changes you made contradicted that. And your interpretation does not stand with the wording. It says if "you must take legal action", which is dealing with Misplaced Pages, not Wikipedians, then they ask you to not edit, hence, the page which the copyright problem would exist. That is how the rule is read, and that is the spirit of the rule. You are attempting to expand the rule far greater than what Misplaced Pages has authority to do. That has been stated previously by others. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Even the photo caption contradicts your interpretation: "A court of law in Trenton, New Jersey. Whilst you may sue in a court of law here, do not threaten to do so on Misplaced Pages." Notice the repetition of the word "on". This rule only deals with public threats made on Misplaced Pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since Ottava has decided to make this a dispute, let me note that (1) Ottava is just coming off a block for having made a legal threat to another user over email, which I overturned after a somewhat begrudging retraction; he appears to be Wikilawyering of the issue, and (2) In fact, the wording of the policy was for a long time clear on this point until this wording was changed at the end of 2006 by Thebainer. Bainer -- I agree that we may not always be able to prove legal threats. However, a privately emailed threat, or a threat posted off-Misplaced Pages is no less damaging to free and open editing than one posted publicly. I do worry a little that a user may try to get another one banned for legal threats "sent privately in email" when no such threats were actually made, but I would rather assume we can work out which user is lying in those cases than potentially allow legal threats if they are made privately. (In fact, I take a private legal threat to be of greater concern: it is closer to what would happen if legal action actually begins. In that sense, those threats are a bit more credible.) Mangojuice 18:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Mango lacked any evidence to back up the claim, I must interject with what happened. I told an admin that I reported their actions to Wikimedia. Said admin claimed that was a legal threat, and then banned me for such. Now, as SwatJester and others have stated before, that is an email, and emails are not admissible. However, you and others wanted to change a rule that was quite clear to make it permissible, even though said rule is clear when it states "on Misplaced Pages" and has always been about Misplaced Pages. The rule was not what you wanted and you wanted to change it without consensus. This is not "wikilawyering". This is an action without consensus, which is frowned upon, especially with such a rule as this. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, she interpreted it as a legal threat because you stated to her, in my understanding, that "an official legal complaint has been filed against you with Wikimedia.". --ZimZalaBim 02:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is not a "legal threat" because it states Wikimedia, which cannot be deemed as one. Furthermore, it is polite, and cannot be considered as a threat. There cannot be a ban, because of what SwatJester stated above, and without proof that there was an actual legal proceeding happening, there cannot be a ban on that notice either. Hence, admin overstretching their authority and a violation on admin not being allowed to ban on an issue that they are concerned with. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I was just trying to explain why she interpreted it that way, since you left out the fact you used the term "legal" in your note above. That's not the issue here, anyway.... --ZimZalaBim 02:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal does not equal legal threat, and its quite clear about that. And the quote is taken quite out of context. The fact that Wikimedia is mentioned shows that. And, excuse me, if its not the issue, why did you bring it up? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mangojuice on this. E-mailed threats might have even more potency, and should be equally discouraged. --ZimZalaBim 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So do I. Hut 8.5 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well considering Ottava's recent experience with legal threat blocks, and the fact that everyone else thinks the text should be clarified in this manner, I think we have a consensus. I do agree that my alteration had some grammer issues, so I recommend someone else try. _(1 == 2) 19:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Well considering Ottava's recent experience with legal threat blocks, and the fact that everyone else thinks the text should be clarified in this manner, I think we have a consensus. " Three people does not make a consensus, nor is the community approached in the manner. This is a major policy issue, and more than just myself have already mentioned that the policy should stand. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, this is not a change to the policy. It already had plenty of language that implied the reading we're all talking about. For instance, "If you must take legal action we require that you do not edit Misplaced Pages until the legal matter has been resolved..." and "If you make legal threats, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." Neither of those paragraphs include a qualification that such threats must be on Misplaced Pages for them to be bad. A few places the phrase "on Misplaced Pages" is used, but there is nowhere an explicit exemption for legal threats made off-Wiki. Mangojuice 01:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

SwatJester made it explicit above that the policy only deals with Misplaced Pages and not emails. Thus, this is a dramatic change to the policy. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, SwatJester doesn't get to decide this, and reading what he said it looked like he was referring to one situation, not all situations. Even if he was right at the time, consensus can change and it is clear now that consensus supports the new clarification. Even putting all that aside, this is how it has always been and we are only clarifying things. _(1 == 2) 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but everyone gets to decide on this matter. A consensus is the people of the board. It has been determined by enough people that the issue of the word "on" is important. If you want to proceed this matter further, the Village Pump is the place. The refusal to address the issue there and instead rewrite the page without bringing up the question is detrimental to what Misplaced Pages stands for and the basis of a consensus. I suggest you go there if you believe that you have a consensus backing such interpretation and such change, seeing as how there are three people around that do not agree with your interpretation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've brought it up at Village Pump: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Discussion at WP:NLT regarding "on Misplaced Pages" --ZimZalaBim 02:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. Mangojuice 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Much better than my clunky attempt. _(1 == 2) 22:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Being the person that Ottava threatened, I can confirm it was more than just his first email; he proceeded after being asked for clarification to tell me he was advising me of my legal rights, that I broke state laws and opened the Foundation to legal action and basically continued in many veins to make crude attempts to intimidate me. Later, when asked on his talk, he claimed he couldn't be stopped from editing because he didn't actually say anything on a Misplaced Pages page, virtually admitting that he had done so elsewhere -- he seems to gloss over the fact that he used the Email this user feature and was threatening over actions taken on Misplaced Pages.

I think it makes perfect sense to update the policy to reflect actual usage. This isn't to stop people from using Misplaced Pages to make threats, its to avoid the chilling effect that happens when contributors are threatened based on their actions here and to ensure that legal concerns are handled properly. Shell 03:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how your ban was overturned for it not being a threat, you are violating WP:AGF by suggesting that it was, indeed, a threat. Now, I suggest that you withdraw your above comment, because it was quite obvious that from the emails, you could not construe it as myself taking any action against you in a court of law. Furthermore, your ban was placed in violation of the bias rule, since you are involved, which is put in place because not even Admin are capable of justly ruling on a situation they are involved in. Case in point is proven by your insistence, without proof, that it was a "threat". Furthermore, you transfered "threat" into "taking legal action" to justify a ban, which is not permitted within the ruling either. The only "chilling" effect is from administrative action that was produced by yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would note that simply by the fact that we're discussing this topic means there will be a result that will be one of 2 things: 1) Legal threats via email are forbidden. 2) Legal threats via email are allowed. In the case of a policy such as this, there really is no sensible middle ground ("Legal threats via email are allowed if..."). As a threat via email has basically the same effect as one made on-wiki, the spirit of the policy should take precedence over the wording. If you make a legal threat to a Misplaced Pages contributor, you mat not edit until the threat is rescinded or the matter is resolved. Mr.Z-man 04:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Mr.Z-man. --ZimZalaBim 04:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1) How do you prove that it was a legal threat? 2) What jurisdiction does Misplaced Pages have outside of Misplaced Pages? 3) Misplaced Pages contributor can contain many things outside of Misplaced Pages, thus, Misplaced Pages would not have power over that. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1) Case by case, presumably. 2) What jurisdictional issue are you referring to? If I threaten someone with legal action, whether on or off WP, the only action we're talking about here is restricting my ability to edit WP itself. There is no attempt to sanction my off-WP actions. 3) I have no idea what you mean with this - please clarify. --ZimZalaBim 04:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but without legal authority to check email servers, you cannot prove that an email is correct or not, so your standard for evidence is non-existent. Hence, you have no ability to make sure a claim is accurate, nor do you have the ability to determine such. What you propose cannot happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues of verifying evidence might hinder some applications of the policy, but it does not render the policy invalid. And this might not always be the case: a user very well might admit to an off-wiki blog post, discussion forum contribution or e-mail message which contained a legal threat. --ZimZalaBim 04:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Really now? I just got an email from you saying that you are going to sue me. I can say that you made an anonymous account to send it by. Can you prove it? Disprove it? And a "user" might admit in a blog? Well, I just registered a blog with your name on it over at livejournal and posted all sorts of things about how you want to sue me. I guess that means you should be banned too, since your name is admitting that, right? I didn't do that, but I don't need to actually do that to show that your theory has extremely large gaps. The fact that people could do such a thing makes any of your points absolutely moot. "On Misplaced Pages" was put there for a very good reason. There is no jurisdiction for Misplaced Pages Admin to prove such things are true or not. The only jurisdiction you have are logs of edits on Misplaced Pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your thought experiments are convenient to prove your position, but they are not complete. If you read my meaning, I am suggesting that a WP user might admit on a WP page (which makes it verifiable to your liking) that s/he made a threat that occurred off-WP. For example, a user might say somethign like "yes, I did sent her that e-mail" or "yes, that is my blog post". Such an admission might suffice as verification. Regardless, you are arguing, in effect, that just because it might be hard to prove an act, we might as well not bother creating a policy that describes that act. That's not a logical stance. Further, if what you argue is true, and we'll never be able to verify an off-wiki threat, then there is no harm in having the policy, is there? --ZimZalaBim 05:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No thought experiment is complete, but that hasn't stopped it from being a time honored tradition. :) Now, if it goes on a Misplaced Pages page, then it clearly enters into "on Misplaced Pages", yes? Thus, the current rule already covers it. When its on Misplaced Pages, it can be confirmed, and the rule "on Misplaced Pages" applies. When its off Misplaced Pages and has no contact with Misplaced Pages, it cannot be confirmed. Hence my concern and the potential for abuse is astronomical. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that WP admins all realize that allegations of off-Wiki misconduct can be hard to verify. But not always. For instance, if someone sends email to me via Misplaced Pages's "email this user" feature and sends me a legal threat, it's not very hard for me to verify it, especially considering that I use a special email address for Misplaced Pages that never receives any other email. And other admins may have a harder time verifying it, but if they trust that I would not make a false allegation, based on my WP reputation, it's not a bad procedure. At least, it's good enough to block the user and not unblock them until they at least disavow that they are considering any legal action. Mangojuice 17:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break in the Above

I think we have enough agreement on the matter to call it settled for now, if a more significant objection to the clarification shows itself in the future we can reconsider. We really don't need to investigate people's motives when the consensus is so clear cut. _(1 == 2) 05:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreement? There hasn't been any actual agreement. Consensus debate on policy requires days and sometimes weeks. What is the rush, especially if the policy read that way for over a year? Being in such a hurry would lead to undue suspicion over the nature of the change and would leave potential problems that would need to be addressed later. Slow down. Misplaced Pages isn't something that changes over night. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are the only one disputing this, we have enough agreement, there is no minimum amount of time to wait when there is such one sided agreement. There is a post at VP like you wanted, and surprise there is still agreement to do this. I am sorry, but one disgruntled person objecting in no ways prevents a consensus from forming. Everyone disagrees and saying it over and over will not change that. _(1 == 2) 15:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you not deny that the effect of an emailed threat is the same, do you believe that people should be allowed to email threats? Mr.Z-man 05:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And they could anonymously email. Thats not the point of this policy. The point is to make sure that Misplaced Pages is not in the middle of any legal dispute. The first part (the "threat") is for either Civility reasons or to make sure that what is said on Misplaced Pages is not used as evidence, or not required to be used as evidence. The second part (the action) is to make sure that edits are not made that would cause harm during the action (i.e. suing someone for libel then editing the page about them, etc) which would cause a conflict and potentially spill over to Misplaced Pages either legally or just in general disruption. Hence, "on Misplaced Pages". Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that (part of) the point is to make sure that Misplaced Pages is not in the middle of any legal dispute. What that means is, while a legal dispute exists, the complaining person should not be editing Misplaced Pages. For that principle it doesn't matter how the legal dispute comes about. Another point of the policy is to discourage legal threats so strongly that editors will not choose to use them to intimidate others they are in a dispute with on Misplaced Pages. Again, it is much more likely for such intimidation to take place on Misplaced Pages if it happens, but it is no less a bad thing off of Misplaced Pages. The only rationale of the policy that shouldn't apply off-Wiki is the point that legal threats are incivil. Yes, they are, and they are incivil even off of Misplaced Pages, but we can't expect everyone to always be civil off-site. Mangojuice 12:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"is to discourage legal threats so strongly that editors will not choose to use them to intimidate others they are in a dispute with on Misplaced Pages." And the ban is preventative, not punative, and only done when the accusation is impolite and breaks WP:CIVIL. Now, there is no spelling of specific legal threats, but the spirit of the ruling deals with defamation and copyright issues. Those are the two which get people threatening action during arguments. Now, these items are not in regards to individuals, but what individuals say on Misplaced Pages. So, "on Misplaced Pages" would be appropriate. I cannot sue you because you are Mango (well, I could, but it would be frivolous). I would need a legitimate action of yours to sue over. Now, off-Wiki incivility is not a blockable or stopable offense. There are tons of ways to have anonymous emails or to fake such. Without having a way to check and recheck the IPs, then there is no direct proof, which would make it, at most, a guessing game, which is frightening to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing legal threats with legal action. "I'm going to sue you" or "You better get a lawyer" is a legal threat, it is a far cry from any actual legal action (which should not be done by email anyway) and in most cases is an empty threat used solely for intimidation, in which case it does not matter if the threat is made on-wiki or by email. The effect is the same. I honestly don't see why you would want to allow people to send legal threats by email. Mr.Z-man 15:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"There are tons of ways to have anonymous emails or to fake such. Without having a way to check and recheck the IPs, then there is no direct proof." There are ways to game every system - I have not yet seen convincing evidence or argumentation that specifically "allowing" off-Wiki threats would be a good idea. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The mini-summary at WP:Harassment#Threats does not seem to differentiate between on-Wiki and off-Wiki threats. WP:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment and WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks also consider Off-wiki behavior as relevant. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Z-man said it well. I do recognize that in some cases legal actions are unavoidable and may be started after a good-faith attempt to resolve things through Misplaced Pages's internal procedures. Thus, it is not strictly necessary to block a user, so long as they comply with the no-edit policy while the case is not fully resolved. But at worse, such a block is unneeded, not improper, as the user would be prohibited from editing in any case. And let me add that email sent via Misplaced Pages's "email this user" feature is, just like ordinary WP posts, an improper channel for those involved in a legal dispute. So if the "on Misplaced Pages" wording is desirable anywhere, it should at least be changed to "through Misplaced Pages" or something like it. Mangojuice 17:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the other policy that RedPenofDoom cites is the same here - you cannot legally verify it is the same user. As I stated above, as long as you can use someone's user name to register an email address or a blog cite without needing permission to use that, you can easily fake such problems. Thus, Misplaced Pages Administrators ruling on such have no actual proof of the various incidents, and to have any rule that makes it seem as otherwise is patently absurd. Its not a matter of should or should not, its a matter of can and can not. Misplaced Pages Admin are incapable of verifying who sent what without having the ability to check IP addresses and have them match up. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

you cannot legally verify it is the same user. Two replies: (a) this isn't a court of law, so we don't need to be able to "legally verify". (b) challenges in verifying actions is not a reason to avoid having a policy addressing said action (it is hard to track down and identify terrorists, but it is still illegal, no?) --ZimZalaBim 17:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, are you saying that WP should specifically "allow" off-Wiki legal threats? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just finished reading through this thread. First, I have a technical question. If one WP user send an e-mail to another e-mail user via Special:Emailuser, does the content of this e-mail get recorded in some log on the WP server? If yes, who has access to such information?

Regarding the discussion above: I am sympathetic to some of the concerns raised by Ottava Rima regarding verifying that a legal threat has occurred, but, by and large, I am with Mangojuice, (1 == 2), and ZimZalaBim on the above discussion. We do not want WP users making legal threats against Misplaced Pages or against other WP users on WP-related matters, whether these threats occurr on or off Misplaced Pages. Thus it is appropriate for the policy to state this. Enforcement is a different matter. Clearly, there is no way to verify, in any reasonable way, if a legal threat has occurred in a private e-mail message sent through non-Misplaced Pages channels. On the other hand, there may be situations where the existence of such legal threat made off-Misplaced Pages can be reasonably verified, e.g. if some-one makes such a legal threat in some public forum, but not on Misplaced Pages. So maybe we could add the word "verifiable" to the sentence regarding blocking, to have it read "If you make verifiable legal threats or take legal action over a dispute involving Misplaced Pages, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels". Still, coming back to my original point, I very much favor the language "Do not make legal threats against Misplaced Pages or members of the Misplaced Pages community" over, say, "Do not make threats or claims of legal action on Misplaced Pages". There are other WP policies and guidelines that, even if not practically enforcible, reflect the consensus of the WP community members regarding desirable behavior and practices. This applies for example, to WP:AB which strongly discourages writing auto-biographical WP articles. Clearly, there is no practical way to enforce this guideline, but it does, nevertheless, reflect the sense of the WP community and should certainly be kept. I think the same reasoning applies here. I do have one other minor quipe with the sentence "Do not make legal threats against Misplaced Pages or members of the Misplaced Pages community". I would prefer to see something like "on Misplaced Pages-relater matters" added at the end of this sentence, for clarification. For all we know, one member of a Misplaced Pages community may be engaged in a legal action against another member of the Misplaced Pages community on a matter having nothing to do with Misplaced Pages (e.g. divorce or a custody case). I don't think it is appropriate for a WP policy to discourage these kinds of legal actions. While reading the full text of the policy make it clear that this is not what is meant here, a literal reading of "Do not make legal threats against Misplaced Pages or members of the Misplaced Pages community" could be construed to apply to such non-Misplaced Pages related disputes as well. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)