Revision as of 22:10, 3 September 2009

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

Scope of NLT

Initiated by Lambiam at 11:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Lambiam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Milomedes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Erik9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jayron32 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• notification of Milomedes
• notification of Erik9
• notification of Jayron32

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Lambiam (filing party) has extensively but unsuccessfully argued the case at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal threats by Milomedes

Statement by Lambiam (filing party)

On August 22, 2009 Milomedes (Milo) contributed a comment to an MfD discussion. This comment was reported on WP:ANI by Erik9 as a violation of the No legal threats policy (NLT). Thereupon Milo was indefinitely blocked by Jayron32. The argumentation for the block was supported by several other administrators. For reasons unknown to me, Milo has not contested the block.

In general, a user is only blocked for repeating a certain disruptive pattern of behaviour in spite of having been warned increasingly strongly several times, and only in egregious cases, after several temporary blocks have not resulted in improvement, for an indefinite time. Blocks for violation of NLT are an exception to the rule: the offending user is generally indef blocked until the legal threat occasioning the block is retracted. The rationale for this exceptional effect of NLT is the disruption caused by the threat of an impending institution of legal action. On the other hand, there are legitimate warnings, in which a user is warned their actions may create a legal liability, but in which the user warning for this possible consequence is not a party in a possible legal action and obviously not threatening to institute action themselves.

The distinction between threats and warnings should be clear; if the boundary becomes blurred, this will make it hazardous to issue legitimate warnings. My contention is that Milo's comment (independent of one's judgement about its legitimacy) was not a threat but a warning, and that the boundary was crossed in interpreting it as a violation of NLT.

In summary, my opinion is that the scope of NLT is narrow for good reasons and does not apply to Milo's comment, and that, if let stand, this application of the policy sets a precedent that dangerously widens the scope of NLT beyond its original intention as well as its historic application – dangerously in the sense that such widening would be to the detriment of the project. For that reason I am seeking a ruling by ArbCom to the effect that this specification application of the policy was an "error of law".  --Lambiam 11:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Should Milo have retracted the legal threat?

It is, in general, not possible to retract a non-existing threat. But perhaps Milo should have clarified the issue and stated his comment was not meant to be a legal threat. As phrased by Coren below (and in different but similar ways in the WP:ANI thread): "Milomedes need but clarify the intent of his statement (that is, state unequivocally that he has no intent to pursue legal action) to be unblocked immediately and unconditionally".

But please note that even before being reported on, Milo had already declared:

If you actually read WP:NLT you'll see that it applies to people who consider themselves to be a victim. It also reads, "A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat..." " I'm simply warning you of your theoretical legal problem that has nothing to do with me. See shooting the messenger fallacy.

I can only read this as an unequivocal statement that Milo has no intent to pursue legal action. The quotation given above was included in the original report by Erik9 and so can hardly have escaped attention; however, it was brushed aside as wikilawyering.  --Lambiam 15:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Was Milo's comment intimidating?

It is not clear to me that this question is actually relevant to the case: also a legitimate warning, to be effective, should be intimidating in the sense that it dissuades users from pursuing (or refraining from) certain actions by pointing out possible unpleasant consequences. So this cannot be the lithmus test, and it must not be concluded that a warning is not legitimate, or is not a warning but a threat, simply because it has a dissuasive intent. That being said, in defense of the application of NLT to this case it has been said or suggested that several users, and in any case Erik9, felt intimidated by Milo. However, there is no actual evidence that anyone felt intimidated at any time. After Milo's comment Erik9 participated in the MfD discussion as before, and never raised an objection to his comment. In bringing the case to WP:ANI, which was after the MfD discussion had wound down and therefore too late to have any effect, Erik9 stated that Milo "made the following legal threat in an apparent attempt to intimidate editors who were claiming that User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses may constitute a copyright violation". If several users felt intimidated, yes, then it was apparently intimidating. If several users, not themselves intimidated, only felt that Milo's comment was an attempt at intimidation, then no, that by itself does not make it intimidating.  --Lambiam 22:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jack Merridew

The statement amounted, at most, to a comment about a hypothetical legal action; an action that *I* conceivably could initiate. I intend no legal action here and don't really see any legal threats in any of this. Milo should be unblocked, methinks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

NE2 means User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses, of course, which has been to DRV. Twice. Links on the page. nb: I'm off-wiki for the next three days ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• pageviews ;)

Too much to read @breakfast. Sort the immediate issue by Milo stating that no legal threat was intended? (Off to plane;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by NE2

Oh god, this is still going on? Milo's comment was wrong on several levels. Whether a "legal threat" is one of those levels, or whether that wrongness is enough for a block, is not something I know. Just delete this obvious violation of Resolution:Licensing policy, unblock Milo, and get on with more important stuff. --NE2 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• pageviews ;)

Statement by Jayron32

Responding to a thread at WP:ANI, now archived at ], several editors noted that Milomedes had issued a clear legal threat, the important bit of which is the clear threat of potential legal proceedings to coerce others to back down from their side of a debate, and let one "win" based on the threat of legal proceedings. The clear threat occured in this dif: , where he says, in part, "If you can't supply believable evidence, I suggest that you strike your claim. If not striking as a matter of silver rule courtesy that you wouldn't want someone else to do the same thing to you, consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom." In other words, if you do not commit some action, you could be taken to court and outed. The couching of a threat in the "hypothetical" (you could...), is not all that compelling in ameliorating the threat. The important thing here is that he expresses a clear desire for others to do something "I suggest that you strike your claim..." and states clear threat if legal proceedings for NOT doing what he wants "If not striking... you could be " That is an unacceptable use of a threat to influence others, and a clear violation of NLT. Milomedes was not immediately blocked for these threats, but given the chance to take them back or strike them. Milomedes was perfectly aware of the discussion at ANI, insofar as he commented at least half a dozen times. He makes no real defense of clarification at ANI, he merely denies that his comments constitute a legal threat "Everything looks ok to me, no violations of any kind by me anyway. A very interesting debate." and then claims that because the difs of the legal threat had been provided by someone he was previously in a conflict with, he did not have to clarify or explain himself: "I'll be glad to discuss the context of this passage with someone else, but since we have a personal conflict, please move on." When two OTHER editors, who he had not ever been involved with, noted that they also thought that Milomedes had violated the NLT policy, Milomedes AGAIN dodged the issue "Hi, BB. I enjoyed our last discussion, so we get along fine. So, you've decided that I'm guilty without hearing the argument?" and "Are you willing to discuss my reasoning, or have you made up your mind?" The deal is, Milomedes never addressed the legal threat in that thread. He deflected the issue to some conflict over an MFD, and made no direct attempt to either clarify or explain or redact his legal threat. Based on the initial legal threat, the clear view by several long-time editors that this was a violation, and most compellingly the refusal of Milomedes to acknoweledge or address the problem, I indefiniately blocked him. I should note that I left clear instructions when I blocked him which stated that all he needed to do was to redact his legal threat, and he could be unblocked by any admin without first consulting me. See . I am not sure why this is being arbitrated at this point, since Milomedes has made no attempt to request an unblock for himself, redact his legal threat, or even give a reasonable explanation which would change the prevailing interpretation of his statements. I am not certain how I would have handled this differently, but if Milomedes himself came forward, requested an unblock, and stated that he would redact his legal threat, I would be the first to unblock him myself. He has not done so since being blocked, so I don't know how we can move forward on this. --Jayron32 13:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Erik9

Misplaced Pages:No legal threats is not to be wikilawyered via the simple artifice of making legal threats on behalf of third parties. Comments such as

If you can't supply believable evidence, I suggest that you strike your claim. If not striking as a matter of silver rule courtesy that you wouldn't want someone else to do the same thing to you, consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom.

are very clearly intended as threats of legal action for the purpose of intimidating editors, and are not, by any conceivable stretching of the term, "legitimate warnings". Given the straightforward nature of this case, I suggest that the Committee summarily endorse the indefinite block of Milomedes via motion. Erik9 (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In light of MastCell's statement below, I would strongly oppose the unblocking of Milomedes even if he were to retract the particular comment at issue here, given his extensive history of similar misconduct. If a full case is needed to effectuate a permanent, unconditional site ban, then I recommend acceptance. Erik9 (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

I got notified, so here I am, I guess, although I don't think I'm involved. Since I'm here you get to hear my opinion. :) What I think is being asked here is not a specific ruling that Milo needs to be unblocked, but a ruling on whether the NLT principle was applied correctly or not, but I could be wrong. These are two different questions, even though the direct practical effect of answering them is the same (Milo stays blocked or Milo gets unblocked)

I spoke out during the AN/I thread saying that I personally didn't think that Milo made a threat. But I think our NLT is clear enough. See Misplaced Pages:No_legal_threats#Perceived_legal_threats ... if sufficient numbers of people think something appears to be a threat, it needs to be clarified whether it is or not. And it needs to be clarified to the satisfaction of those people, the ones who perceived it that way, not just to the satisfaction of people who didn't think it was a threat in the first place. Coren: If ArbCom were to decline this case in a way that says ArbCom feels the current wording of NLT is clear enough, that seems a good outcome. If they wished a motion so stating, also good. But a decline on procedural grounds might not be so good if there really is an ambiguity in need of clarification. (I'm not sure there is myself, but if there was)

As to the particulars: Although Lambian is arging that Milo didn't make a threat, and did in fact clarify that he didn't, it doesn't seem to satisfy the complainant, Erik9, nor the blocking admin, Jayron32. So... if we assume these are reasonable folk, (and I see nothing wrong with the block given the information available at the time) Milo has more to do, in my view, if he wishes to be unblocked. Whether he wishes to or not is unclear. If I am right about what Lambian wants, that's not particularly relevant to what is being asked of ArbCom, though. ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In view of the additional incidents that MastCell has brought up (and thanks for a thorough job there, M), while I still feel a (maximally charitable) possible interpretation of what Milo said is that it's not a threat... the pattern here is damning. The spirit of collegiality seems to be violated in all those incidents, and a considerable change in approach is needed, not just a recitation of a "I didn't mean it" mantra, before an unblock makes sense. That's completely handle-able by the community, ArbCom need not comment on that if they don't wish to... but I'd again say that perhaps some comment/finding that the block was within the NLT policy might be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk

Like Lar above, I'm not party to this, but I was notified, so I'll say my piece. Erik 9 gets things absolutely correct. Threats of legal action to not become friendly bits of advice by merely using the passive voice. I explained things rather crudely at the AN/I thread, but the argument goes something like this: Legal threats have a corollary in physical threats. A threat of physical violence does not immediately become a warning if the words "I will do physical harm to you" are replaced with "physical harm could come to you". Protonk (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Statement edited in order to make sense. Protonk (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

I was notified of this case due to commenting on the ANI thread and I'm honestly at a loss to imagine what's being asked of the Committee here. On ANI quite a few of the respondents felt that Milo's statement could be taken as an attempt to intimidate editors who disagreed with his position in the deletion discussion with a legal threat. While I probably wouldn't have blocked, I believe I mentioned that he should take much more care in the future if his intent was a friendly warning. Instead of addressing these concerns, Milo was dismissive and didn't seem to be interested in confirming that it was only intended as a friendly warning; he was blocked until such time as he confirmed that this was not intended as a threat.

With such a simple solution, I'm at a loss for why Lambian has continued debating whether or not the "threat" was actually a threat or not. Several reasonable folks thought it was; only Milo can clear this up. Shell 20:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Baseball Bugs

Milo made comments to Erik that were cloaked in legalese and which he found intimidating. That's the litmus test - the effect on its target. It doesn't matter that Milo doesn't think Erik should feel intimidated. He was. It's a legal threat, and the block should stay until Milo repudiates his intimidating comments. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The additional info reported below, seals the deal. He's a repeat offender of such attempts at intimidation, and he should stay blocked until, at the very least, he rescinds all such previous comments and pledges not to do it again. One more thing: What is Lambiam's personal interest in this? Baseball Bugs carrots 09:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

Milomedes (talk · contribs) has a recurring tendency to resort to bullying, threats, and intimidation in response to disagreement. Since I've previously had a conflict with him, I'll let the diffs do the talking. I'll break them down into three categories:

Threats to employ wikiprocess

• "I've gotten just a hint at WT:EL that some number of other editors would testify against you for their own reasons. Be wise and keep me disinterested with your future good behavior." (To User:WhatamIdoing)
• "I suggest you take up my generous offer... Write another PA and it could go hard for you, having failed to show contrition here." (To User:Ash)
• "Remember, it only takes two signatures to file an RfC/U on you. I think that there are at least two, and possibly as many as five signatures available." (To User:TheRedPenOfDoom)
• "If necessary, I'm prepared to sign an RFC/U on you, though I hope it won't come to that. You might or not 'win' an RFC/U, but I think you will not come out of it smelling good, and no doubt it would increase your previously expressed sense of being victimized... I would prefer to not encourage your less reasonable opponents to take you to RFC/U/2 and /3, where you might eventually lose if your present attitude further deteriorates." (To me)

Threats involving defamation

• "Previously you defamed an out editor in another section on this page... . A PA by careless accusation is bad enough, but a careless defamation is a threat to the Wikimedia Foundation. Even worse, you don't show any sign of contrition, retraction, or reforming." (to User:2005)
• "Since you clearly don't understand the gravity of accidentally defaming a professional (libel per quod), you shouldn't be commenting on it, or worse, trivializing it." (to User:Verbal)
  • When asked to elaborate: "Sorry, but it would be a further WP:BLP violation to explain what you got wrong. Some things in life just have to remain a mystery."

Threats to report "vandalism"

• "So here's what's could happen if non-selective content removal happens again: Next time, with both parties having been warned, it's probably going to be clear-cut content removal vandalism, and I will have these options... Add another charge to a private draft RFC/U, give the vandal enough rope, and wait while doing real world." (to me)
• "...you will be committing and attempting to cover up vandalism the next time you unselectively revert. Consider yourself warned." (to me)
• "If however, you unselectively revert or don't provide an explanation, you will be committing and attempting to cover up content removal vandalism. Consider yourself warned... When I work on this again, edit by the rules and this issue won't be a problem." (To User:Verbal)

I'd draw three conclusions. One, this is not the first time that Milo has wielded the club of defamation to try to bend other editors to his position. Two, the current "legal threat" is best viewed not in isolation, but as part of a recurring pattern of threats, bullying, and attempted intimidation in response to disagreement. Some of those threats involve wikilitigation, and some real-life accusations of defamation. And thirdly, changes to WP:NLT, and its specific application, might best discussed at AN (where there was strong consensus for this block) and on the relevant projectspace talk page.

If Milo clearly intended no legal threat, then an unblock may be appropriate by the letter of the policy. However, in terms of the spirit of the policy - which I understand to be aimed in part at preventing attempted intimidation of other editors - it may be worth viewing the current episode in light of the context described above.

Again, for the sake of disclosure, I have had a conflict with Milo at Broda Otto Barnes and do not wish to present myself as a neutral party here; hence the diffs. MastCell  23:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dayewalker

I'm not named, but I was informed of this on my talk page. I was the one who initially suggested ending the discussion at ANI and blocking Milo for the clear legal threat, and feel like I should reiterate my feelings here.

To clarify, I don't think Milo was threatening that he would sue. I don't even see that as a possibility. However, it seems very clear that he intended his words to intimidate, to threaten people who disagreed with him with the possibility they could be served with legal action. To me, the primary purpose of NLT is not to prevent lawsuits. The chance of a lawsuit being filed because of something on wikipedia is very slim, and should be handled by Godwin anyway. NLT is there to protect people, especially new editors, from being bullied and intimidated by the threat of legal action. Speculating that editors with differing opinions are going to be sued is a bully's tactic, and NLT should be in effect to protect new editors who could be scared off from the project.

When this discussion started, Milo refused to directly address the questions, began to wikilawyer about NLT, then started telling us which editors he'd be willing to discuss this matter with and which he would ignore. He didn't take his conduct seriously, and brushed off the questions and concerns of other editors. I have no problems whatsoever with the block, nor would I have a problem with an unblock and acknowledgement that his comments could have been taken as legal threats. Dayewalker (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sjakkalle

I'll just chime in since the diff which Milomedes was blocked over was in response to a vote I entered on the MFD. My response to the statement at that time was amending the sentence slightly (it was not a big deal), and caution Milomedes that I found his "warning" of being outed and sued in a Florida courtroom to be "very close to, if not over, the line of violating our policy on legal threats". I was unaware of the following ANI discussion, until after Milomedes had been blocked for it. I have not sought any block of Milomedes, and I don't have strong objections to unblocking. I did find his conduct somewhat rude, responding to one of my posts with a facepalm image as a way of saying "you are stupid" is not very nice, but that is an other story. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Stifle

Maybe I'm being dense, but wouldn't this be better resolved by the concerned users stating "I withdraw any legal threats I may have made during the period (date) to (date)" than by a month-long ArbCom case? Stifle (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• Milomedes is currently indef blocked and has not edited since Aug 23, should anything be done (email, temp unblock, etc) for his participation in this request? MBisanz 12:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/4)

• Awaiting further statements. Also, Milomedes has contacted the Arbitration Committee regarding his block by e-mail, independent of this request, and I will take his input there into account. At present, and subject to further input, I am not convinced that a full arbitration case will be necessary to address this matter, but I do anticipate having some comments and suggestions for how these issues might be addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• As a simple comment: part of the reason of NLT is to not only ensure that possible legal proceedings are not hindered or made worse by continued participation, but is also meant to avoid threats of legal actions being used to intimidate editors or stifle discussion.

  That being said, I note that Milomedes need but clarify the intent of his statement (that is, state unequivocally that he has no intent to pursue legal action) to be unblocked immediately and unconditionally; this makes me doubt that the matter need be handled by the committee at all, and certainly not at this time. — Coren  13:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  I obviously cannot speak for the committee here, but I can state without a doubt that if a finding or fact or motion was made as to the propriety of the block per NLT, I would vote that it clearly was correct — especially given the background. — Coren  10:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• More input per Coren and NYB — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Am wary of the 'No Legal Threats' policy being used as an overly blunt instrument here. All sides should be attempting to de-escalate this. If Milomedes has a history of quasi-legal rhetoric and posturing, then that does need to be addressed, but the NLT policy is correctly used for specific legal threats, not posturing (which this clearly was). Equally, admins administering NLT blocks should not make demands to be met before unblocking, but should calmly explain what is needed and play their part in de-escalating the situation. I also agree with the comment made in the admin noticeboard thread that too many people piling in with their opinions made the situation worse. What was needed was a calm conversation between the blocking admin and the person who was blocked. Everyone else commenting in all likelihood only served to inflame the situation. Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Erik9, as regards this comment, there may well be a case to examine Milomedes's conduct, but Milomedes will almost certainly be unblocked to present a defence if a case is accepted (and he will be unblocked if he retracts what he said - regardless of whether it was a true legal threat or quasi-legal posturing). What will not happen is leaving him blocked while a case is heard. Calling for a "permanent, unconditional site ban" is not helpful here, and is only escalating the dispute. This is Milomedes's first-ever block. He has edited since May 2005. There is no request for comment on his conduct. He may not be a perfect editor, but what I see here is an over-reaction to his quasi-legal posturing, and admins and other editors who should know better, escalating the dispute. Of course Milomedes should retract what he said and get off his high horse, but others need to get off their high horses as well. This was a minor dispute that could have been handled by a block, shutting down the noticeboard thread much earlier, and letting Milomedes calm down and file the necessary retraction in an unblock request a few days later. There is no need to force Milomedes to agree that this was a legal threat (though he should acknowledge that others saw it as a legal threat, and he should be prepared to discuss the matter in the appropriate way after retracting his initial statement). Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • My view is that Milomedes should retract what he said (but no more demands of him should be made than that) and then be unblocked, and that MastCell should start a request for comments to address the concerns he raises above (which were probably raised in the wrong venue at the wrong time), and that others should allow Milomedes the chance to say something in his defence, and to state how he would change his conduct, before those others pile on with comments. If MastCell wishes to take his concerns further, he should ask Jayron32 to unblock first, or wait until the NLT aspect of this is resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• The block of Jayron32 was appropriate and within the NLT policy. Milomedes had that opportunity at ANI but failed to clarify anything which would make the community feel at ease. I agree with the view that the NLT policy exist to protect editors from being threatened and bullied. Milomedes still need to clarify his position if he needs any unblock. Milomedes needs to clarify that the last incident was not intended to be serious. That said, and looking at the primary evidence brought by user:MastCell, I can see that there is an apparent trend of using different kinds of threats in the Misplaced Pages daily dealing with others. That is of course totally unacceptable. If Milomedes needs to get back editing he needs to both clarify his position and promise the community not to use such methods to gain an argument or a position again. Whatever is the case, his account should be unblocked (for this purpose alone) to hear about his thoughts. -- FayssalF - 04:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. I see no reason for the Arbitration Committee to take this up. Determining the proper scope of the NLT policy is a matter for the community to decide, if clarification is required. The block itself is also perfectly within the reach of the community to resolve with no indication that any particular factors would impede the process. --Vassyana (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)