Wikipedia talk:No legal threats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia from being sued for libel, and Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia by an administrator: veiled threats are, nevertheless, threats. anthonycfc [talk] 00:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/_/Wikipedia_talk%7ENo_legal_threats_cda5.html"