Wikipedia talk:No legal threats/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Recent edits/what is a legal threat

I've reverted a couple of changes to the policy today. I'm pretty sure what incident they refer to and I don't object to the change per se, but as this is a formal policy with legal implications I think it would be best to discuss the changes before implementing them, as changes have widespread implications. Although I'm normally opposed to changes to policies that result from single incidents, I'm not sure that can be said here, and I agree that language about drawing the line is important.

I see that there were changes around the end of December that added language restricting when admins can apply the policy, and that's probably reasonable. I think everyone would agree that admins should ascertain the veracity of a legal threat before blocking; a {{uw-nlt}} warning ought to be a first resort unless the threat is very obviously credible or the user is a serial offender. However, I personally don't like the language nullifying the policy with regard to frivolous threats - Wikipedia editors are not expected to be experts in law. All that should be required to invoke the policy is clear (or reasonably interpreted) intent to intimidate through the use of a legal (or legal-sounding) argument, which I believe is the point of the policy (to enforce civility, not to quash legal claims). Am I wrong? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

What we are talking about here is [1] and [2]. I think your describing me in your edit summary as "throwing words at it and seeing what sticks" was a bit over-the-top, but I agree that policy changes should be made carefully and I'm fine with treating this as WP:BRD. Here is what I proposed, as a new subsection of "What is not a legal threat":

Comments that do not threaten possible action

Simply using legal or quasi-legal language in a discussion, or observing that something might raise legal issues, does not constitute a legal threat, even when it happens as part of a heated discussion. A legal threat occurs when there is an explicit or implicit indication of intention to take legal action, or to have someone else take legal action on one's behalf.

That really is not in any way that I can see "nullifying the policy with regard to frivolous threats". Frivolous threats are still threats, frivolous intentions to take action are still potential intentions to take action, and that language does not change it. As for the purpose of the policy, the stated purpose is to remove any ongoing lawsuits or other legal processes from the editing environment. The proposed text distinguishes between legal threats and legalish language that does not threaten. If there is clearly "intimidation", that is the same thing as "threatening". I will be blunt here: some recent ugliness would have been avoided if we did not have administrators who think "I just heard a legal-sounding phrase: that means that I automatically must block." The community, it seems to me, is pushing back against the increasing tendency to treat the NLT policy as something that is algorithmic. Admins don't have to be legal experts; of course not. But they do have to be clueful about whether or not a user sounds – either explicitly or implicitly – like they are acting in a threatening manner. There is a reason this policy is "no legal threats" and not "no legal jargon". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, Tryptofish, there is not even consensus that the block was bad. All the people who supported it have just tired of commenting because no one wants to be told how they are a horrible person. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If it were just a single event, I wouldn't be proposing anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it's definitely a pattern of events, and I don't think the pattern has emerged all that recently. I apologize for the language I used in my revert summary, it was not appropriate. Will comment further below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

And what I alluded to as nullifying was the revert that NeilN mentioned below, which seems to imply that admins must be knowledgeable in law to determine that a legal threat has potential legal force before acting, which is not appropriate. But you didn't add that. Edit-conflicted adding this to my above comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose all changes Needs tweaksI was recently threatened by a editor who I had blocked to be reported to a subcommittee of the United States Senate. He was correctly blocked for this at ANI under either NLT or NOTHERE. What most people don't know is that after the block was made indefinite, I received an email from him with information on specific actions that he claimed to have taken in regards to getting congressional intervention. I immediately forwarded the email to ArbCom, and they cut off email access to end the harassment. Was this threat silly? Yes. Did I have it in the back of my mind that the WMF might be getting a subpoena for my identity? Yes. Was this an quasi-legal threat? As the changes to this policy were written, it was. These actions had a chilling effect on me even though I knew how ridiculous they likely were. Legal threats are often used as a form of harassment, and admins should take them very seriously. Chilling effects are a big deal, and the complaints at one single user talk page do not consensus make. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Edit: I was mainly referencing the edit below in combination with the above text. Since we edit conflicted and we're talking about different things, I've struck. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That was still "an indication of intention to take legal action". It sounds like you are "strong opposing" first, and reading what it actually says later. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that what we are getting into is instruction creep. Most admins are actually very cautious about using a NLT block, and you'll frequently see that's not a legal threat pop up at ANI. Admins should have discretion here, and the language makes that more difficult. It would make it much harder for administrators to take neccesary actions to prevent the harassment of users on-site (which really is what most legal threats are), and would give harassers cover if they were taken to ANI over it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Those are legitimate concerns. But the proposed text does not do what you say it would do. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The question is whether an individual is using legal language with the intent to chill discussion by forcing consideration of off-wiki issues that might have an impact on the real life of a contributor. I am worried that with this language, people will ignore the implicit wording, and you'd have more situations like the recent one: with the block party claiming that it wasn't explicit, and the admin claiming it was implicit. I would be fine with language such as:The core of a legal threat is the intention to take off-wiki action through a legal or quasi-legal process with the intent of having an impact on Wikipedia. A legal threat does not need to be direct, it can be implied. Simple mentioning of legal language does not constitute a legal threat, but editors should be careful in using it. which I think gets at what you are trying to say (intent matters), while also making it clear that it doesn't need to be You will be hearing from my solicitor. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to work on alternative wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• I support the idea (the text may be hammered out later). In fact "wiki-legal" legal threats occur on Wikipedia almost daily: I am talking about WP:COPYVIO. This may be mentioned in the policy, and other similar cases, if any (not off my head). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Copyvio is an English Wikipedia policy that has legal implications, but it is not a legal threat, as our policy is in many ways stricter than required by the law. When discussing copyvio, admins are discussing what the English Wikipedia has set as it's policy on copyrights, which does have a legal implication, but is distinct from the law. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    • If something has legal implications, involving it is a very real legal threat. For example {{Uw-copyright-new}} says: Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, i.e, basically says you can be sued. The suggested amendment permits this. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I think that WP:NLT#Copyright already addresses that, doesn't it? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Now that we have apparently figured out that there were two different reverts being discussed here, I'd like to suggest a revision of the language that I had originally written, taking into account what Tony B has said:

Comments that do not threaten possible action

The defining feature of a legal threat is the intention, either directly expressed or implied, to take action through an off-wiki legal process that would have an impact on Wikipedia. Simply using legal or quasi-legal language in a discussion, or observing that something might raise legal issues, does not necessarily constitute a legal threat, even when it happens as part of a heated discussion, but editors should be careful not to be misunderstood as making a threat.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Given where the addition is proposed (in the "What is not a legal threat" section), the header should be an affirmative to fit with the style of the other sections: the other three are things that are permitted while this one is worded like something that is forbidden. Something like "Discussions of legal aspects of content", but written by someone better at it than me. And I would put "the defining feature" at the end of the paragraph. I agree it's needed, since I haven't really said so yet. And perhaps "off-wiki" can be "formal", and add "or its editors" after "Wikipedia". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe "the defining feature" should just go right at the top of the section, below the main header and above copyright, as it really applies to all of the sub-sections. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

About the header, I thought "Comments that do not threaten possible action" (note the "not") is what is permitted, isn't it? But I like those other ideas, and I'm receptive to having a better header. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I think it's the "not" that makes it negative, or negative-sounding, like "you can do things that aren't this thing" - you're still describing the forbidden act, not what is permitted. What I'm trying to get at saying is that routine project matters sometimes require discussion of matters that may have legal consequences, but just talking about it is not inherently a threat to take legal action. But as I'm sure you can see, I'm not good at language, that's why I'm an accountant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

How about "Simply using legal language" as the header? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll do you one better: Legal language or Legal terminology. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is better! And I'm thinking that this simply is not the right part of the policy page to define legal threats, but just to distinguish "legal language" from "legal threats". So:

Legal language

A legal threat involves the intention, either directly expressed or implied, to take legal action. Simply using legal or quasi-legal language in a discussion, or observing that something might raise legal issues, does not necessarily constitute a legal threat, even when it happens as part of a heated discussion, but editors should be careful not to be misunderstood as making a threat.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would add or seek governmental intervention after take legal action, which would cover all quasi-judicial/legal actions. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather add that to the lead instead, WP:KISS and all that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's very good! I knew you'd come up with something better than I would have. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's let this marinate for a day, and then go ahead with it if there are no further valid objections. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I've read all of the comments below the section break, and it's not clear to me whether editors oppose only the material discussed below the section break, or also oppose the revision above. As for the revision above, I do not think that it weakens the policy in any way. I'd like to go forward with it, because it really would help with the kinds of problems that have been happening a lot recently, but I'll wait another day in case anyone really does object to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see the section break until after I'd commented, as indicated by my edit summary, and, like Lankiveil after me, I clearly stated that I opposed any softening of the policy to help wikilawyers who make the claim that this or that wasn't a direct threat of legal action and to make life more miserable for the recipients of the threats in question. If anything, I think the policy should be stronger, and harsher on those who apologize for "borderline" threats that any reasonable would recognize as clearly meant to intimidate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I agree with you that we should not soften the policy, and I also agree that we should be sympathetic to the targets of threats and not do anything that would make them more unhappy. Of course, that is not the same things as saying that no changes of any kind may be made. It seems to me that this proposed revision does nothing to soften the policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

By "this change" I assume you mean the addition in the quote frame above? I see it as a softening, as it would most definitely make life easier for the apologists to say "No, that's not a legal threat, and no block should come from this". Yes, it's a given that sometimes when legalistic language is used it is not meant as a threat, but that's the problem with changing the policy: it's a given, and can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It is a fact of history that when editors have made (repeated?) statements that could reasonably interpreted as veiled threats, they have meant it to create a chilling effect and should have been promptly blocked from editing, but weren't because some people weren't convinced; I don't see any evidence that a comparable number of good faith contributors have been driven off the project because their inappropriate use of legalistic language was misinterpreted as threatening, and given the case I linked below I find it incredibly hard to believe that any not-insignificant number of good faith contributors have received NLT blocks and left the project as a result. I, on the other hand, did leave the project because no one dealt with the editor issuing repeated "borderline" legal threats. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, and I understand where you are coming from. But I cannot by any stretch of the imagination see what you describe as anything other than an implied legal threat, and the proposed language, I think, makes it clear that that's not permitted. "Veiled threats" are still threats, and not "simply using legal or quasi-legal language in a discussion, or observing that something might raise legal issues." And as we speak, a very respected editor appears to have been driven off the project after simply using legal jargon that was misconstrued as a threat. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the implied legal threats in question, which should have led to a block (and preemptively protected me from the direct legal threat off-wiki), were by-and-large "grey" enough that some editors -- apologists for borderline legal threats, who are quite numerous -- were not convinced; the proposed change, even if it is not controversial in theory (per your elaboration), would make said apologists' job easier. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Another revert

This is a darn good revert. Anyone can call the police (which I count as a legal threat) for just about anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the revert we are discussing here. I hadn't even seen that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish, that was the main change I was opposing strongly (we edit confilicted originally. Sorry for not using the template). I also have concerns with your language above, but I think it is much more justified than the above revert, and think that there can likely be compromise language found. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh! OK, then, I think we had crossed wires, but I'm happy to hear that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:, I agree and would like to see it restored. That text is: "The mere use of a legal term or concept is insufficient justification for a block where a reasonable person would recognise that actual legal action is either not intended or not possible." SarahSV ^(talk) 21:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: You completely misunderstood what I said. The removal was good. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I just added a sub-section header, to distinguish between two different sets of edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I'm sorry, I misread. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Take everything I said above, and apply it to the revert we're discussing down here, and it was what I most strongly opposed. Even a frivolous lawsuit or legal proceeding could have real world consequences, and most certainly has a chilling effect. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Agreed, a good revert. Even a fake threat is intimidation, the latter being precisely what the current policy is against. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni and Staszek Lem: I don't see how either of your comments follow from the text. It isn't about frivolous lawsuits or fake threats. It says that legal-sounding language does not mean that someone is going to sue or could sue or might sue. If you copy my words without attribution, I might say "that's theft", or "that's a copyright violation", but it doesn't mean I'm heading for court. It means "please don't do that."

While I support that we want to avoid the chilling effect, it's also true that we ought not to be so easily chilled. The concept of the "reasonable person" is important here. What would a reasonable person regard as a legal threat? That's what this policy is about. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, partly. While I agree we ought not to be so easily chilled as you put it, the policy is not so much about what can and cannot be interpreted as a legal threat as it is about not using language intended to have a chilling effect. Tony's example above is a good one: a threat from a user to bring an editor before a congressional committee is probably an empty threat, things don't work that way as I understand it, you can't just randomly sic The Government on people. But the editor was clearly saying those things to have an intimidating effect, and that is forbidden by this policy (or ought to be) regardless of whether a reasonable person would regard the threat as credible. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of legal threats we get would be excluded by that language as most of them would be laughed out of court. As a reasonable person, I know that the United States Senate is not going to investigate my blocking a professor who was violating our meatpuppetry policy, but it still has a chilling effect and I honestly felt harassed even though I knew there was about zero chance of a Senate subcommittee subpoenaing the WMF for information about me. The language in the above revert would effectively mean we should throw out this entire policy how it is normally applied (blocking angry red linked accounts who are mad we are slandering their ethnic group, etc.) and make it so only people who have a legitimate grievance with Wikipedia or our editors get blocked. That doesn't seem to me what we should be encouraging. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that the comment about the congressional committee falls under this policy, because as you say it's nonsensical. But it could be disruption or harassment, and if someone is making a nuisance of themselves in that way, a block is justified. But again, that has nothing to do with the text that was reverted. It said (bold added): "The mere use of a legal term or concept is insufficient justification for a block where a reasonable person would recognise that actual legal action is either not intended or not possible." SarahSV ^(talk) 22:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

And again, that text would prevent us from making the overwhelming majority of NLT blocks as most of the legal threats we get are nonsensical, but equally disruptive and chilling. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I think if you know that a threat is nonsense (not just unlikely, but nonsense), you shouldn't block for it, unless it has become disruptive. How common are NLT blocks? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, if you're throwing around nonsense legal threats, you don't have the competence required to keep editing anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question (re: how common). Most of the ones I have seen are along the lines of You have insulted the great [Ethnic group here] and slandered us. I will be contacting my solicitor! or equally ridiculous You have revdel'd copyrighted content, I will sue you because Wikipedia has a more strict copyright policy than the law requires! (and always much more verbose). The reason I disagree with your view is that I'm pretty confident most legal threats would be considered frivolous lawsuits. The question is if there is a crazy person on the internet who doesn't think it is frivolous, and is willing to take action. You can't account for crazy, and that is what we're often dealing with here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, but a block won't make any difference to that. If someone is ranting and being disruptive, a block may be appropriate, but it's the disruption that attracts the block. But if someone is just upset, and because of that says: "You know, I could sue for this," it's best ignored. Blocking creates drama and sometimes it looks like bullying. So I think the "reasonable person" test is a good one to bear in mind, although I do take Neil's point (below) about age making a difference. Still, if someone is worried about being sued, blocking the person who threatened it won't provide any reassurance. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors shouldn't be put in the place of deciding whether threats are "reasonable" or not. Don't make them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Applying the reasonable person test to Wikipedia editors is probably a bad idea generally. Wikipedia invites editors from all over the world, many of whom do not speak English as a first language or particularly well, or who face real political and legal persecution and whose governments and militaries do randomly arrest people for bizarre things or no reason at all. We can't be expected to know whether a user being threatened with the full force of the United States government, which does go into foreign lands and kill somewhat indiscriminately, has a reasonable cause to interpret the threat as real and life-threatening. I may be off the rails a bit here, my point is that not every "reasonable person" knows what they can and can't be taken to court for. The test of legal threat for Wikipedia should be intent, not credibility. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention the age factor. What I may have taken semi-seriously at twenty gets a laugh now that I'm... not twenty. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a "what if" factor and the chilling effect that it has. Even ridiculous threats that have no legal basis cause this, because someone can file a ridiculous lawsuit, and even that would make the average person's life miserable. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I should have said I meant intent to intimidate, not intent to sue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I went back over the edit history, and I see that the material that was removed by this revert was added in late December by EdChem and EEng: [3]. I'm pinging them in case they want to comment now. Please let me also suggest that editors should consider using revised language, as opposed to just treating this as something that can only be kept as is, or completely reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any softening of policy Sorry, but no. NLT is meant to protect editors from suffering a chilling effect, which is why the scope is broad to allow blocks of editors who write things like "You should be aware that what you are doing might have legal consequences", or, a bit more blatantly, "You are defaming me and if you persist I will have to pursue the appropriate action". "Appropriate action" might be meant in good faith as an allusion to opening an ANI discussion of NPA violations, but just as often it is meant to intimidate by creating a veiled threat of off-wiki legal action. Users who simply do not understand that such language is inappropriate should not be editing for other reasons. In (rare?) cases where it is meant in good faith, all they need to do is explain that, apologize for the misleading language, and they will be unblocked. (Full disclosure: I left the project for several months in 2014 after receiving an unambiguous legal threat off-wiki from a user who had avoided being blocked for his "borderline" legal threats for months on end and who was not blocked even subsequent to what he did to me for well over nine months, so I might be biased against any enabling language that would make it even more easy for said users to get away with comments that are clearly meant to create a chilling effect.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

And if anyone doubts the veracity of my above claim to an off-wiki legal threat from an editor who should have already been NLT-blocked before I had ever interacted with them, please ask Drmies, to whom I forwarded the email some months later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Reading up a bit, I'm seeing a lot people interpreting the policy as being a ban on threats that come from a sincere intention to take legal action. The problem with that interpretation is that we don't know users' intentions: someone told that if they meant to issue a legal threat they will be indefinitely blocked will probably say they didn't mean that; and that's not even the primary purpose of the policy, which is to protect editors from intimidation. Whether or not intimidation was intended by the intimidator, WP:AGF says we take the word of the intimidatee that they were sincerely intimidated, pending the intimidator explicitly stating that there was no intention either to initiate legal action or to intimidate, and apologizing for the disruption. Where there is smoke there is fire, and that the kind of editor who makes "borderline" legal threats is the kind who would make explicit legal threats if they thought they could get away with it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ambivalent about any change at NLT. I think the original and proposed wordings are fine. It's important we do have clear policy against actual legal threats. I don't think you can fix an admin's inability to comprehend and interpret plain English as intended in a given context by modifying policy. --В²C ☎ 01:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that this isn't a vote, I'm going to assume that the two comments above are about the revert discussed in this subsection, because the issue discussed above the sub-section break does not soften the policy in any way. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CREEP and WP:IFITAINTBROKE. This smells like a solution in search of a problem. I have not seen any evidence that there is widespread misapplication of this policy at the admin level that would require a wording change. Per B2C, I also don't think we need to legislate understanding plain English, if someone doesn't understand the meaning of the word "threat", there's nothing we can do to fix that! --Jayron32 15:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if you might be right that the meaning of a threat is one of the problems. For example, "You should be aware that what you are doing might have legal consequences" is given as an example of a legal threat above. But maybe that's not always a threat? Maybe if you stand up in front of a group of newbies at an edit-a-thon, you really ought to say to them,
    "As with anything that you post on the web, you should be aware that what you are doing might have legal consequences. If you steal pictures off of someone else's website and upload them here, then Commons might block you, and the owner can sue you for copyright infringement. If you post libelous comments or make harassing remarks, you could get in trouble with your school as well as get blocked on Wikipedia. And every single time you change a page, you are legally and irrevocably agreeing to release your content under CC-BY-SA, to be used and changed by anyone."
    To me, that little speech feels like an impersonal education about objective facts, even though it uses exactly the same words that would feel like a threat in another context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That's why context matters as much as content, and why being an admin is hard, and why not everyone gets the bit. It takes some discernment to know what a threat is and is not, and it's not always just the words, but the situation in which they are said.--Jayron32 20:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron: whether or not something is "always a threat" is kind of immaterial, and whether it is a violation of this policy depends on whether it was meant to intimidate. In my experience, 99 times in 100 when someone says "You should be aware that what you are doing might have legal consequences" on Wikipedia, it is meant to create a chilling effect, and said user should be blocked. There is definitely a movement of apologists who would defend such behaviour as "not technically qualifying as issuing direct legal threats and so not a direct violation of Wikipedia policy", which just makes life even more miserable for the victims of these incidents: honestly, I think we are too soft on such apologists, since if it wasn't for them I suspect this would have resulted in an indefinite block and a whole load of bureaucracy for not a lot of good purpose could have been spared. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any relaxation of policy per User:Jayron32. There are occasionally of course incidences where people apply this policy in a way that I find overzealous, but this is easily dealt with through a quick discussion. Let us return to the reason that we don't want legal threats: not because they are legal threats, but because of the chilling effect that they can have on editors and the process of collaboration. Context is often just as important as the words used, and trying to codify how to read context is just going to end up in more wikilawyering and disputes. There is no problem with the current policy or the way it is being applied , in my view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC).
  • @Tryptofish: I know your suggestion is coming from a place of good faith, but I do see that as a weakening of policy in your suggestion in that it will really open things up to obnoxious Wikilawyering ("I know I said I was going to send some highly paid goons around to lawyer you into the poorhouse, you should obviously have known that was just hyperbole. Bad block!"), if you'll pardon the pun. I'm not sure that there is a problem here to fix, is anyone getting blocked for suggesting that something might be a copyvio, to use an example from above? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC).
    • I'm glad that you recognize that it's coming from a good place, thanks. If someone said that thing about goons, that was indeed a threat, and not just using legal jargon, so as far as I can tell, the changes discussed above this section break don't let that off the hook. As for copyvio, no, and as already pointed out, this policy page already says that copyvio discussions are not legal threats; the proposed change would be in the same section of the policy page as that. But yes, someone was recently blocked for saying something in legal-ish language that was not a threat, and there has been an ongoing pattern of such situations, as also pointed out above. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I think the incident that set this off is the one where Oshwah blocked Tony1 for saying something would become a legal matter. While I appreciate the efforts to tighten up the wording of policy to avoid such occurrences in the future, I don't think it's necessary at all. That situation was resolved, and while some may still have hurt feelings over it, hurt feelings are possibly the worst possible state to be in when discussing a change of policy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• (oppose, in case it isn't clear - added) There are plenty of ways to violate the policy without actually threatening to sue someone. "Chilling effect" comes to mind, when someone keeps harping about how something is libel. This is tricky, and requires judgement from the admin, and no amount of written policy can narrow that down. Typically, someone is told to strike, warned, and they either move on or double down and get blocked. Saying that in order to violate a policy you have to actually threaten legal action is opening a can of worms, or loopholes really. I don't know the case that led to this change, I just know that the longer and more detailed you make a policy, the more loopholes you create, and the more difficult it is for an admin to use judgement in applying it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• @Dennis Brown: Thanks for that, I agree entirely. We need to leave room for a judgement on whether an editor's comments have a chilling effect. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, you said "when someone keeps harping about how something is libel" - are you including discussions on the TP of a BLP when an editor is arguing to remove a potentially libelous statement, and are you saying that it's a blockable offense to (1) argue about such a statement and/or (2) use the term "potentially libelous" or "libel" during an argument for its removal? If so, how does that support BLP policy which requires strict adherence to all applicable laws in the US, or the banner that is used on all the TPs of BLPs? The banner states: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous?? It escapes me how a potentially libelous statement about a BLP that is being discussed on a TP could even remotely be considered a legal threat or actionable as disruption resulting in a block, regardless of how many times it's mentioned. I oppose suppression of productive TP discussions (short of PAs, disruptive actions and real threats of harm) because it tends to be used by editors as a strategy to game the system, and favors advocacies or a small group of POV warriors who typically prefer quick ends to discussions in order to avoid wider community input that might bring a different result. Those are situations when editors depend on our trusted admins to look at the provocation and reasons behind an argument - i.e., content rather than targeting only editor behavior. I also oppose hair trigger reactions to passive comments that may include a legal "term" VS a "threat". The conundrum created by chilling effect in combination with WP:NLT is inadvertent censorship and misinterpretations resulting in wrongful blocks, such as what happened in Tony1's case which resulted in an indef block (long since resolved). The remedy to prevent it from happening again is removal of ambiguities in our policies, and to add clarity to both NLT and the blocking policy. It should not be a major hurdle to overcome. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at that one case, but adding more language seldom makes a policy clearer and seldom would I want to change policy over a single issue anyway. What *usually* facilitates a good outcome is admin judgement, which is WP:ADMINACCTable to the greater community. And no, I do not think that every conversation that mentions libel is a violation, that would be silly. And if a statement is unsourced or poorly sourced in a BLP, of course it should be removed. It is better to have less information than to have more information that is potentially damaging in an unjust way, which is the whole of BLP tied up in one sentence. Talking about possible legal ramifications in a sincere way is not the same thing as trying to game a discussion to "get your way". I can't believe I have to actually explain that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not all admins think the same as you, Dennis. In fact, consistency is part of the problem, and when there is ambiguity and a lack of clarity in the policies that govern, coupled with unfettered power, well...here we are. Thinking beyond one's own thoughts and perspectives may help bring clarity to some of the issues, especially when dealing with multiple interpretations that are based on different perspectives and cultures, all of which comprise this project. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

If the problem is one of judgement when interpreting a policy, then the problem isn't the policy, and changing the policy won't change the judgement. Again, I know nothing of this case (haven't looked), and any time an admin does anything there are those that agree and those that disagree, but you can always take any admin action, including those simply done with the perceived authority of being an admin, to WP:AN for review. Theoretically speaking, no amount of policy tweaking will fix poor judgement in applying it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I just want to clarify one point, not arguing, but just setting one part of the record straight. Some editors have commented that the incident with Tony1 is the reason for this proposal. It was the catalyst that made me want to do something here. But I would almost never propose a policy change based on a one-off. As other editors noted earlier in this discussion, there has been a pattern in recent years, with multiple occurrences, of blocks based on a simple reference to something legal, without making a threat. Like: I saw legal language, so that's an NLT violation. And it isn't. And it's not just me saying that: if you read the discussion from the top, other users including some administrators have confirmed that they too have seen this pattern. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The best solution it to take those specific examples to WP:AN. Admin should already know the difference between a discussion on legal ramifications and a legal threat, the existing policy covers it. If they don't, then no amount of new text is going to change that. New text will not fix poor judgement. The first two paragraphs are crystal clear on what is and isn't acceptable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Tryp, I wasn't trying to suggest this was based entirely off that one incident. I believe it's a catalyst, as well. I just think it's a bad block done right, as it were, as the blocking admin deferred to the community and owned up to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. Dennis, I guess I'm less impressed than you are with the cluefulness of the admin community, at least some of them. MP, I just wanted to make it clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm just as skeptical, which is why I'm a fan of WP:adminacct. Holding admin accountable is what raises the average quality of judgement, and if an admin is out of consensus, I would hope that THEY would want to know so they don't do it again. *Most* of us really do try to exercise judgement based on what we really think the community would want if it went to ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• After thinking about the comments that have been made, I have decided to drop this proposal. If anyone else, however, still wants to pursue something like this, please say so and I'll be happy to come back and try to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Tryptofish: thanks for pinging me, though I haven't been around much. The change resulted from the Tony1 block where the advice to talk first was ignored and where the problematic comment was an alleged legal threat only to someone who has no clue what legal action is possible. The discussion that followed gave plenty of evidence of the policy being treated as a block-on-sight-of-legal/legalistic-terms-and-no-judgement-required. If consensus is that that what's NLT is meant to be, fine – it's a ridiculous view, but policy dictates that the community can choose to act foolishly. We could save time and ensure equal treatment, though, with a bot that blocked for any edit containing a word from a blacklist of legal terms or an edit filter preventing their use. The collateral damage would be huge, but so what. And, we could have an unblock bot checking for "I solemnly swear that I am up to no NLT-violating"... EdChem (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Good to see you back! Obviously, there has been a lot of discussion since then. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryptofish. There certainly has been a lot of discussion. Obviously, I do not agree with the revert of my addition about legal terms. However, I know a consensus when I see it, so won't be pushing for it to be restored. EdChem (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Late to the party, but the thread is still open. I strongly support making essentially the change proposed above, though I don't have strong feelings about any of the particular copyediting nitpicks about the exact phrasing. There is clearly a problem here when blocks get issued for things that are obviously not really legal threats, so just fix it. Policy exists to codify best practice, not try to change it, and since we know blocks like this should not happen, failing to address them is a failure to properly write policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed addition

In this diff I added to the Perceived legal threats section:

Don't refer to any dispute resolution process in Wikipedia as a "legal" process. If you do, you can expect to be questioned about what you meant and to be asked to redact it; if you refuse to redact it you may be blocked under this policy.

This was reverted with advice to discuss. So, thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Unlike the section above I don't know what this is in response to. We're just having a big discussion in the section above about what is and what is not a legal threat, and this edit suggests that a user can be blocked under this policy simply for describing a Wikipedia process in a way which is certainly not a legal threat; I'm against this change. But I'd like to know what was the inspiration for this edit? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read what it actually says. If the person meant DR but used the word "legal" they are asked about it and given a chance to redact it, to say what they meant. If they won't, then they can be blocked. See Talk:Olympiacos_Water_Polo_Club where the phrase that has caused all of this (ridiculous) ruckus is still there. Any reasonable person seeing that is going to perceive that as a legal threat - and the "clarification" "Legal issue" meaning I'll take him to ANI, you idiot. is somewhere else, entirely. And it says "may be blocked" not "will be blocked". Admin discretion is built in. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't the second sentence of the lead already cover this? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Since the lead just summarizes the body, we apparently have been lacking this in the body for a long time. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) What you described is what I got out of it, and thank you for providing an example. I'm still very uncomfortable with your wording, which suggests that badgering a user over their description of a process is acceptable. I believe the policy already says elsewhere that saying things that may be perceived as legal threats is bad practice, and if it doesn't then let's go in that direction. How about this instead:

Avoid referring to Wikipedia dispute resolution processes in legal terms. If a user expresses concern over your use of legal-sounding language, be willing to discuss the matter. Misunderstandings over quasi-legal language often lead to avoidable blocks.

But with the usual tweaks as I've previously noted I'm bad at this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There is never a reason to refer to a DR process in legal terms. We should draw a bright line saying "don't do it". I am fine with backing off the immediate block but people who do it should be addressed about it, and they need to redact it. What Tony1 wrote was frankly stupid (for anyone, but especially for an experienced user with a history of blocks for making actual legal threats). We should not be bending over backward to accommodate the actual, unacknowledged-by-its-perpetrator idiocy here. The follow up redaction is important, btw. We should not leave perceived legal threats laying around on talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• No A policy isn't meant to be exhaustive or go into minutia. This has nothing to do with DR and I haven't seen any evidence this is a wide spread problem, so adding it is superfluous. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That is a very coherent DennisBrown answer, which i appreciate. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think it was a very good addition, because it's not there as an expansion of policy itself, but as sound advice for editors reading the page. And it's very good advice. I wouldn't be adverse to moving it to an explanatory supplement, if having it on the policy page is an issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't care if it was in an essay, but policies should be as concise and general as possible, to prevent creating loopholes. The one universal thing that all policies SHOULD do is assume the reader has basic common sense. This is why I say they shouldn't be exhaustive. Just like in WP:DE we don't need to define everything that is disruptive, only give a general definition and leaving it to the community and admin (with community review) to determine what is and isn't "disruptive". When you start giving advice or making lists, you open the door to wikilawyering. We aren't trying to make it perfect, just clear, and some will misunderstand (intentional or otherwise) no matter what you say. It's like the expression: Make any task idiot proof, and someone will just invent a better idiot. Better to use the KISS principle; keep it short & simple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis for the most part. I don't think the answer to the NLT issue is censorship of editors or expectations of common sense, meaning you should've known better. That may be construed as leaning toward arrogance. Admins are the pillars of our community; therefore if any assumption is to made, particularly involving patience, civil behavior and common sense, it rests heavily on their shoulders - they are the ones with the unfettered power of the mop. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: You're right that it is good advice, but don't you think it belongs in an essay somewhere? I know you actually said you wouldn't mind that, but, per the last sentence of my comment below, I actually think completely separating it from NLT would be best, since it's actually the opposite problem: it usually takes the form You can't file charges against me -- I am innocent of the crimes of which I am being accused!. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88, re: your last sentence reminded me of Presumption of innocence and for the essay, may I recommend User:Tryptofish/Lazy_policy_arguments? ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown, Atsme, and Hijiri88: I understand that it's confusing and frightening to be in a discussion in which no-one is arguing (it frightens me senseless, every time), but all three of you should re-read the last sentence of my comment. You may also want to read what I wrote in the thread above this one. You can read more of my thoughts at User talk:Tryptofish#Looks to me like... The tl;dr is: I think this is great advice and I want it put out there, but I also share your concerns about too much verbiage in policy. Also Atsme, just because an argument is lazy doesn't mean it's wrong. Hell, sometimes the laziest argument is the best. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I should hasten to add that, it being my talk page, there's a lot of other, um, stuff in that talk section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

"The one universal thing that all policies SHOULD do is assume the reader has basic common sense." I'm afraid that is backwards Dennis. The reason we have policies and guidelines is because over an extended period editors have demonstrated they actually do not have common sense. If they did, we wouldn't need to have written policies to tell them how to behave. If you have to refer someone to a policy that says 'do not make legal threats' they have clearly already demonstrated a certain lack of sense. I am with MP in that I feel this should be either here directly, or in an explanatory supplement - perhaps with a number of examples 'Do not make legal sounding statements unless you are making it clear you think there is a legal issue with the article' 'do not state you are going to take legal action and claim afterwards you meant AN/ANI' etc etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That goes against WP:AGF. Most people aren't stupid. Most people edit here without ever getting a warning from anyone. Most people will respond positively to being pointed to a policy rationale. It is the minority that cause the problems. You don't see the silent majority because they are too busy editing articles, but to assume most people don't have common sense is not only wrong, but a little insulting. Most of the time I've asked someone to remove a comment that was on bordering on being a legal threat, they did so without an issue, we talked, we moved on. Most of the time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• No This seems like a given, and I don't think needs to be spelled out in the policy. It's also kind of off-topic for NLT, as it's usually very easy to tell the difference between a newbie who is accidentally using the wrong words to describe the normal Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, and a newbie who is issuing a legal threat. In fact, most of the time I've seen Wikipedia processes referred to as "legal processes" (or indefinite blocks referred to as a "death penalty" -- that literally happened) it's been the users who were on the receiving end of the "threats" who were using legalist language. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• I also would prefer not to add this. I've been thinking about the point that there should be something in the main text if it is mentioned or summarized in the lead. In this case, the lead defines legal threats in a way that makes clear that on-Wiki DR is never a legal threat. It's a definition as opposed to a summary of something. Once this has been defined as being out of the policy scope, there is no need to discuss it further, and no need to give advice about it (unless the line between on and off-Wiki is unclear and needs explanation, which it isn't and it doesn't). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course DR is not a legal process. Yet ... Tony1 and the whole stupid aftermath. Several experienced users at ANI read the experienced Tony1's use of the phrase "legal issues" in its plain meaning (knowing that DR is not a legal process). I don't understand the sturm und drang (around which we could do some actual psychoanalysis). An experienced user did a stupid thing and instead of fixing the mistake even after it was a) called out on the talk page by the user to whom it was addressed, and b) called out at ANI where its plain meaning was taken plainly by several people... still did nothing to fix it... so got blocked, called everyone else idiots and flounce-quit. if that all matters then yes, for the Tony1s of the world, valued as they are. yes. let's make the painfully obvious, painfully obvious. In the "perceived legal threat" section. (and no, I don't think it would have been better for some admin to scurry over to him and personally say to him, "oh gee what did you mean here?" That goes well beyond "kindness" and into kowtowing.) Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the main reason an editor should be blocked (my bold)...Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users... I support the clarification... well done. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

yes and the community has historically had a pretty much zero tolerance policy for legal threats due to the harm they cause to discussions of content. There is never a reason to make a legal threat in discussing content. newbies make the mistake sometimes but for an experienced user to use such language is idiotic (to borrow a phrase) and to not back off it after it has been called out is something yet worse. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I just find the whole thing unnecessarily aggressive for a policy. Most users understand that when experienced users tell them "you should retract that statement as it violates [some policy]" that they should do so. Those that lack that understanding are blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is just off-topic. Referring to ANI as a prosecution or ArbCom has being a bunch of judges with an unruly courtroom is common hyperbole, and maybe a little tiresome, but it has jack to do with actual legal threats or anything this policy is concerned about. The fact that our WP:P&G material isn't to be interpreted like a legal regime is already covered at WP:P&G itself, which is also itself a policy, ergo this proposal is redundant. (How's that for some lawyering? Heh.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

I think these changes should stop, because bit by bit the policy is being extended. The more words that are added to policy, the greater the unforeseen consequences. There's a danger that, because of the length of the discussion, most people are no longer taking part, which means that changes are being made with little consensus.

• A few weeks ago, the policy opened with: "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia."

• That became: "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or regulatory process that would target other editors."

• I've partially reverted to: "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to initiate an external (real life) legal process that would target other editors."

First, I can't see the point of the changes. It was enough to add in brackets, after the recent situation: "A 'legal threat' does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia."

The version I found today (the second above) with "regulatory process" could cover discussions about how to deal with COI (e.g. by referring articles to the Federal Trade Commission or Advertising Standards Authority) or even vandalism. Repeat vandals are sometimes told their edits may be referred to their school or ISP. I recall one that was referred to the army because it was coming from their IPs.

Re: "initiate" v "engage in": the latter could include an editor responding to a legal threat, e.g. one says: "I'm referring this to my lawyer" (legal threat), and the target says: "If you do that, I will of course defend myself" (a threat to "engage in a legal process"). SarahSV ^(talk) 22:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The editors who were engaging in the discussion of this change a month ago are generally the same as were commenting immediately prior to the change finally being implemented. There was a great deal of discussion, consideration of minor language differences and interpretations of the different proposals, and really a lot of very pedantic nitpicking over the words that were chosen for this final version, including the choice of "engage" over "initiate", which you just reverted without having participated in the discussion at all. If you'd like to have a look through the points raised in the discussion (starting from the #Proposed addition section on 5 February) and see if your concern was already addressed, that would make a good starting point for continuing the discussion. But I think that you should not revert from Tryptofish's revision that was derived from a month's worth of discussion without checking that discussion first. Or if you're determined that such a discussion cannot possibly represent widespread consensus to the degree required to change policy, we could put the change to an RfC, but note that the discussion was advertised at the village pump. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 05:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, it's poor form to revert two editors on a policy page over a disputed addition. The latest addition was today, and I reverted almost immediately, then explained on talk. Please revert yourself and respect WP:BRD. People ought not to be forced to take part in endless discussions on pain of not being allowed to revert.

I believe most of the changes were pointless to begin with, and are now becoming damaging. The recent problem we had was an admin blocking without checking first, in violation of this policy, so advice about that was made more prominent. That was really all that was needed, and perhaps a footnote or something in brackets about "legal" not referring to internal dispute resolution. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know because you were involved in it, the policy was stable prior to the flurry of bold editing starting around 27 December, which was in response to the incident you mentioned and done mostly without discussion. When I became involved around the end of January I likened that editing to "throwing words at the wall and seeing what sticks" (apologies again to Tryptofish). That was poor form for editing a policy with legal considerations. Since discussion started around 5 February, there were exactly 3 edits to the page over a month, all with changes that were discussed at length before being implemented, in pursuit of cleaning up the mess left behind by that previous month's worth of undiscussed changes, and not because one admin made one action under a bizarre interpretation of the policy. Please don't start that word-slinging up again. If you have issues with it, please discuss, but note again that the choice of "engage" over "initiate", as well as the choice to mention regulatory processes, were already discussed at great length. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 06:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, here is a cumulative diff of the edits (including mine) which you disparage as "throwing words at the wall" and as a "poor form of editing." You might notice that (a) virtually all of the changes remain in place – outside the lede, only the eminently sensible statement that you objected to has been removed; (b) some dreadful writing has been changed to be comprehensible and concise; and, (c) the recent changes to the lede have rearranged the position of additions ("Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention if there is doubt. Blocking for legal threats is generally not such an urgent need that it must be done before determining whether an ambiguous statement was genuinely a threat of legal action" has been moved). The old statement that:

If there are users who are involved in a legal dispute with each other whether as a direct result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, it does not constitute a valid reason to block them, as long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia

was changed in Dec / Jan to the concise and clearer

A legal dispute between users, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a valid reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia

has been worsened to the longer (though not-as-bad formulation from before) of

That a legal dispute exists between users, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a valid reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia

I have no clue why this is thought an improvement, but as "cleaning up the mess" (as you characterise it), it is simultaneously trivial and lame. As for debates on "engage" v. "initiate" and "regulatory processes", neither were included in the December / January changes. Basically, the only change of consequence from our "mess" was your unilateral removal of a change that at least four editors (myself, EEng, Tony1, and Tryptofish) saw as positive. Our "undiscussed changes" might equally be described as the collaborative work involving at least eight editors, and I for one find your attempts to portray mostly-intact changes as if they were one step above vandalism offensive. Is it possible for you try for a more collegial tone, demonstrate some respect for other editors, and stop pretending consensus is a synonym for what you think? EdChem (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

SV, the misunderstandings over NLT policy are not limited to Tony1's incident. I was called on it a couple of times, once by an admin (no longer with us) simply because I referred to the legal aspects of BLP policy during a TP discussion and mentioned edits that may be considered libelous and should be removed. I've seen issues at AN/I as well, all of which were actual legal threats. To further clarify terminology such as "engage", "initiate", "intent", "defense", etc. - in the context of this policy why not just simplify it with the following: Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat in this context is to threaten litigation or seek legal recourse in real life that targets Wikipedia, the WMF and/or other editors in an attempt to settle a dispute or seek retribution. Litigation is the "process of taking legal action", and it is all-encompassing. Does that make sense? ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@EdChem: I'm not the one "pretending consensus is a synonym for what [I] think" in this discussion. The changes that Sarah reverted were thoroughly discussed in the section(s) above, several different versions of the wording were tested and revised, and the one that Tryptofish ultimately wrote into the article is the one which 22 editors participated in the development of, and either explicitly agreed or did not explicitly object, including all three of the editors you pinged above. It's none of our faults nor a fault in the discussion that you were away for a month, then dropped your objection into a point in the debate which by that time was four weeks in the past. To your specific points:

a) the "eminently sensible statement" was discussed approximately here and ultimately was not restored, as editors agreed that the language weakened the policy's intended goal of protecting users from legal intimidation, and that users are not expected to know the difference between a credible threat and a frivolous one. I'm summarizing a very long discussion and probably not well, as it concluded a month ago and is not fresh in my mind.

b) no argument from me on this point, nor I think was there disagreement from anyone.

c) I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but the changes to the lede were the most discussed out of all of the recent changes. The "legal dispute between users" section was copyedited to its present ("worsened", as you put it) version by Sarah here, and there does not appear to have been any subsequent discussion on that particular change until you raised it just now.

I have no interest in protecting any particular version of the policy, only that it should be stable, and we only get to stable through discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that I don't agree with you. There are two issues here, and I have not done a good job of making myself clear. The first relates to the changes in the policy text. The second relates to how you have characterised myself and others, which I found objectionable and which is what motivated me to post. Unfortunately, in doing so I failed to make myself clear on the first issue, and for that I need to apologise.

On the first issue: I added into the policy a direct statement that the mere use of a legal term does not make a comment into a legal threat, let alone a blockable offense. I believed and still believe this should be an utterly uncontroversial statement of the obvious. Sadly, there have been plenty of blocks that show this is not obvious to some admins and WP:NLT has been used to justify some highly questionable blocks. Consequently, I believed and believe that my addition was both positive and somewhere between desirable and necessary, and I thought it uncontroversial – a view reinforced by the lack of comment at the time while there was active editing and attention owing to the Tony1 incident. The events while I have been away show that it has generated controversy. However, what I did not say but should have added is that I also know a consensus when I see one, and I recognise there is a consensus to remove my addition. I think that is a poor decision, but that doesn't mean I am going to spend a long time arguing about it – the opportunity for me to engage in such a discussion was during the time when I was away, and it has passed. Further, I am as bound by consensus as anyone else is and I will not be editing the policy to re-add my comment (or anything similar) now. If a future time comes for a further discussion of the topic and a reason to examine whether consensus has changed, I recognise it would properly start with a talk page discussion rather than a bold edit. I'm sorry that I did not make clear that I respect that consensus rules here even when I disagree with it, and that I do not expect to reopen the discussion of my addition.

On the second issue: You have characterised the changes from December and January as creating a "mess" needing "cleaning up." The only substantive change that has been removed is my statement on legal terms. Everything else is still in place, if slightly reordered in the lede section. Your characterisation is, to me, both inaccurate and offensive, and comes across as a superior ticking off an inferior for creating a problem that necessitated some large amount of work. There has been substantial discussion, that is true, but much of it unrelated to what was changed previously. I note that you agree with my point (b), that bad writing was improved by the December / January edits and the improvements are still retained presently, and say no one (including you) has suggested otherwise. I don't see where your comments have recognised anything positive in the changes made at that time. You say they were "throwing words at the wall" and an example of a "poor form of editing." Perhaps if you had made a balanced comment and recognised that positive changes were made, rather than just painted everything as a mess, I wouldn't have objected to your post and been motivated to reply to you about it. I feel that your comments describing the previous changes are inaccurate, unfair, harsh, and I object to them. I do not believe that I created a mess or contributed to the creation of a mess. I think the characterisation of what has since happened as "cleaning up" is inaccurate and unjustified. I do not accept that what happened was poor editing. It was bold but responded to clear deficiencies that were made clear in the discussions of the Tony1 incident. Had there been objections at the time and a talk page discussion, I would have discussed collegially and would not have edit warred, which would have been poor editing. As for describing other editors as just "throwing words at the wall and seeing what sticks," your allusion equating the quality of the words / edits with mud is clear and offensive. I object to the descriptions you have given of the edits made by myself and others, which was the reason I posted above. Your use of the phrase "undiscussed changes" for edits made by a group of up to 8 editors, with edit summary communication and a framing discussion through the Tony1 incident, is also pejorative. As I noted above, an equally reasonable description would be collaborative editing "and I for one find your attempts to portray mostly-intact changes as if they were one step above vandalism offensive." In case it is not clear, it is what you said about me and others that is the reason I posted, and I ask that you reflect on what you said and how you said it and consider whether it was reasonable or acceptable.

Leaving aside consensus, which is a different topic, may I ask again: "Is it possible for you try for a more collegial tone [and] demonstrate some respect for other editors?" EdChem (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I think there had been a lot more drama here than the objective facts would require. I will readily admit that I was briefly quite annoyed with Ivanvector after the "throw words at the wall" remark, but I want to quickly add that, once we cleared that up rather easily, I have found it to be a pleasure to work with him, and he has been very helpful from my perspective. And the simple fact is that, despite some hyperventilation to the contrary, the Recent changes at issue here have not changed the policy in any way that should upset anyone. Basically, the language changes just made existing policy clearer, and in particular, easier for new editors to understand. There was absolutely no need for the recent edit war, nor for any of the alarm that generated it. All this noise has been over: (1) making it clearer that no one gets out of jail for free by saying "I started the lawsuit before making the threat on-Wiki, so you cannot block me for threatening to initiate the lawsuit", and (2) making it clearer that threatening to get another editor in trouble with a regulatory agency (threats that have in fact occurred) is still a legal threat even though it isn't about a lawsuit. (Prior to that, some more substantive changes specified that blocks for legal threats are rarely an urgent matter and so it is often worthwhile for the admin to communicate with the user before blocking. And that has not been controversial. Then some edits clarified the lead to make clear to noobies that a legal threat is not simply the use of legal language, as in "referring to" a legal process, but the actual making of a threat to take legal action – hardly a change in the underlying policy.) Is any of that worth getting upset about? I think not. Unfortunately, policies like this one deal with problems that get people upset (and after all, a legal threat is upsetting), and that leads some editors to overreact whenever they see an edit to the policy page. They get upset first, and read talk page discussion later. If editors would just come to the talk page and WP:AGF, we would get to consensus so much more easily. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

My five cents here:

• with regard to "regulatory" - there has indeed from time to time been discussion at WT:COI, WT:PAID, and elsewhere about regulatory aspects of commercial speech (FTC and FDA in the US, some about EU law) (for example "native advertising", Dec 2017, German court case and EU law, Dec 2017, EU law, Oct 2017, respect this guideline June 2014, FDA guidelines for social media, June 2014, etc)

I do not support that approach to things, pretty much because of the spirit and letter of this policy (and I find it generally useless armchair lawyering). We don't solve problems on Wikipedia with off-WP legal methods.

That said, I find the addition of "regulatory" to have been poorly discussed and not an improvement.

• In general I find the fuss over this policy ridiculous.
• Yet more generally, I find that people who refer to "libel" and the like in discussions about BLP issues often are doing that in opposition to the spirit and letter of this policy -- they are usually (not always -- and the difference is fairly obvious) trying to intimidate opponents and lend weight to their own arguments.
• Finally, I support SV's trimming for the simplification of it, but I do not support the way it was done. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It makes no sense to use NLT to block an editor who is simply trying to help another by explaining what "libel" refers to in our PAGs or what constitutes libellous material in a BLP. Spontaneous actions like that are part of why this whole discussion began. Libellous material in a BLP is obviously a major concern if the TP banner states: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.. If a newbie or worse, a pod of advocacy editors create a Coatrack or attack page, and are not being BLP policy compliant, the editor who attempts to explain the what/why about libellous material should not be blocked for doing so; however, if the material is not removed, perhaps a block would be justified for the editor(s) refusing to remove the material. That isn't the same thing as the actual BLP or their agent, etc. showing up threatening to litigate if certain material isn't removed, or the like, but how often does that happen? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between throwing "libel" around in a heated discussion and calmly teaching a newbie about BLP. I don't think I have ever used "libel" or "slander" in a WP discussion. What matters is whether content is supported by strong sources. Bringing terms like "slander" or "libel" to bear or using other legalistic language is almost never necessary - as I said I find that kind of language most often used rhetorically to intimidate/gain advantage. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about "initiate" versus "engage in", nor do I have a strong opinion about "or regulatory", but I will strongly oppose any rolling back beyond that. Before anyone beats up on Ivanvector any more, I'll offer User:Tryptofish/Lazy policy arguments and specifically User:Tryptofish/Lazy policy arguments#The owner for anyone's reading enjoyment. I'll add that I have always been under the impression that talk pages are for discussing what should be on the page, and watchlists are for keeping track of discussions about things one cares about, particularly when the watchlist contains something like "are there any objections?" or "do we have consensus?" and other editors respond with support for whatever was proposed. But hey, maybe there's a new editing norm that I hadn't heard about. I'm fairly disgusted with what has happened here over the past 24 hours or so, and I'm going to let other editors hash these issues out for a while. But I'm going to ping Wnt, who first asked that "initiate" be changed and gave reasons for doing so, and TonyBallioni, who first raised the issue of adding something like "regulatory" and gave reasons for doing so. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I said "governmental" or "quasi-judicial" (and I would prefer governmental now that I think about it). Threatening to report someone to the FCC or something similar is definitely covered by the intent of this policy, and we'd interpret it that way if it ever came up to a noticeboard. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• I would leave out regulatory, which opens a can of worms, and place the description in a footnote, like this: "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia.{{efn|A legal threat in this context refers to an external legal process that would target other editors. It does not refer to dispute resolution within Wikipedia.}} SarahSV ^(talk) 02:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Atsme, I wrote the above before I saw your post. Tweaking yours to: "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. Making a legal threat in this context means to threaten litigation or seek legal recourse that targets Wikipedia, the WMF and/or other editors in an attempt to settle a dispute or seek retribution." There is a problem with "seek legal recourse". If an editor is being harassed by another editor, and the former calls the police or hires a lawyer, they're not in violation of this policy (so long as they don't post any threats on Wikipedia) but they are "seeking legal recourse". SarahSV ^(talk) 03:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't like that "real life" has been removed from the description in this edit. We have also been attempting to make clear that referring to internal Wikipedia processes (e.g. Arbcom, a quasi-legal bureaucracy if ever there was one) are outside the scope of this policy. It's not nice to say "I'll take you to ANI!" but it is not a legal threat. As for "seek legal recourse" I agree, but I think the sentence could just be constructed better, say if "threaten litigation or seek legal recourse" were changed to "threaten real-life legal action". And as for "governmental/regulatory" if I recall correctly it was in response to TonyBallioni's example of an editor threatening to haul him before a Senate subcommittee hearing, and discussion over whether that qualified as a legal threat. I think it does, because even though most people in the west will know it's nonsense it's clearly meant to intimidate, and to much of the world's population the U.S. government is a big, scary, violent and unpredictable monster. But I also think this is a very specific and unusual example, and that just saying "legal threat" already covers it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I see Sarah already covered the "real life" thing with the footnote suggestion. That would work for me as well. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I see no good reason to move these things into a footnote, in part because the editors who most need guidance are unlikely to read footnotes. At most, I would use a footnote to add something beyond what is currently in the lead – but what is in the lead now really needs to stay there. I don't think there is anything that bad about "regulatory", but I would not mind changing it to "governmental" per Tony just above, or maybe to something else. I want to point out, though, that lawsuits and other judicial processes are "governmental" also, which makes it more difficult for the inexperienced editor to understand the distinction being made. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

How about "legal or regulatory" → "judicial or other governmental"? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Overnight, I thought better of that. Would "legal or regulatory" → "legal or other governmental" be better? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at recent changes [4] it seems like the text is moving in the right direction from when I looked at it before. No longer are we speaking of "referring to" a legal process, which was overly vague. But we do include governmental actions, which is also appropriate -- specifically, I think it is absolutely appropriate in the context of the FTC example given at the beginning of this section. What is the difference between reporting an editor you think is spamming to the FTC and reporting an editor you think is adding an "obscene" image to the FCC? We don't need a bunch of regulatory vigilantes running around reporting editors, or threatening to if they don't desist. If the community as a whole at ANI decides to report a spammer to the FTC, they can presumably override the policy by consensus, but even then I think it's a bad idea. Governments are expensive janitors -- we will surely regret it if we don't stick to cleaning up our own messes. Wnt (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"Target other editors" vs "Target Wikimedia Foundation"

I have used the WP:NLT to both deal with people on the help desk who have threatened to sue other editors as well as those who have threatened to sue "Wikipedia" in general which I have taken to be a threat to sue the Wikimedia Foundation. Should this page also mention suing Wikipedia/WMF or should some other page be used in that case? (Or are people who threaten to sue WMF not liable for getting tossed?)Naraht (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that this policy is specifically about other editors, not the WMF. (Obviously, though, threatening to sue the WMF is not a smart idea.) The WMF has their own legal department, and the legal department goes to pains to say that they will not represent editors. But I could be wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean more along the lines of

1. User at Help Desk threatens to sue User:SomeUser for reverting their edits, WP:NLT can be used to toss them.
2. User at Help Desk threatens to sue WMF for not having a page on Spaghetti trees, can we use WP:NLT?

Naraht (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That was what I was talking about. What I said about their legal dept wasn't clear, sorry. I meant that if they see themselves as separate legally when it comes to representing en-wiki editors, then en-wiki editors are entitled to regard them as legally separate too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with Tryptofish, Naharat. In my view, it all falls under the same bucket of throwing around the threat of legal action to try to intimidate people to take action here in WP. I think NLT is a fine response to #2 above and my sense is that if the person persisted they would end up blocked under this policy. If on the other hand the person is saying something serious about libel or the like, in my view you should still cite NLT and point them to OTRS where they can get appropriate and confidential managing, which may include bringing in WMF legal. The OTRS people know how to handle serious stuff. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, I think Jytdog may be right about that. In any case, it's a good idea to send the person to OTRS and to admonish them about NLT whether or not there would be consensus that it applies. I think a good argument for my earlier answer is that threats against WMF are not chilling in the same way as threats targeting another editor, but I also think that any kind of legal threat is unhelpful in the editing environment. Certainly, nobody is going to find fault with you for invoking NLT in the context of example 2. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hell no if the WMF won't represent me then they shouldn't be protected LordFluffington454 (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaving User:LordFluffington454's comment although I don't think he understands exactly what we are discussing. This is probably more to do with his being upset that we don't give Creationism equal time. Anyway, as to the issue, I agree with Tryptofish's last post. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't even remember this discussion. :) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Need clarification

My concerns may be considered by some to be overreacting, so I'll just say up front that my prior experiences in the broadcast industry tell me I'm not. I also want to mention up front that it is not my intention for anything I say to be considered a "legal threat" - I'm simply bringing the issue here for discussion only. If nothing else, perhaps it will provide some fodder as to the complexity of the NLT policy. An article was created based on the Steele dossier that was published in Buzz Feed. Some examples of the background chatter surrounding that whole ordeal is evidenced here, and here, (and there are numerous other RS to cite). Setting politics aside, there are serious NPOV issues at the article - it was recently nominated as a GAC. I properly tagged the article because of its instability and NPOV issues, and mentioned the verifiability/stability issues about the dossier itself on the TP (citing the relevant sources), but the tag was removed. I realize we are on our own as editors...but at this point, I don't know if (a) I should forget the article exists and run away from it as fast as I can since my RL ID is known, or (b) if I should contact the WMF legal and make them aware the article exists. I have no clue if there are any legal implications at all - I'm not an attorney. I will say that this policy tends to create a chilling effect for even attempting to discuss potential legal issues so I'm cautious about saying anything that could be misconstrued. That's why I've brought it here (and for my own peace of mind). ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

What? There is nothing to discuss here other than a possible new form of canvassing. Contact anyone you like off-wiki, but don't talk about legal issues on-wiki in a manner that might chill discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent discussion at this policy page has looked at whether or not expressing concern that one or another sort of content might expose Wikipedia to legal issues, and the consensus was that such discussion is not a legal threat unless the editor raising the issue actually expresses an intention to pursue legal action – and that's the opposite of what you said. So, bottom line, this has nothing to do with the NLT policy. Whatever you choose to communicate to WMF legal is between you and them. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but Atsme may be concerned about personal jeopardy by editing the articles. Since neither Fusion GPS, Orbis Business Intelligence, Steele, or Simpson have sued BuzzFeed for copyright infringement or libel, I wouldn't worry. Editors are pretty small fish to fry, and U.S. law protects us due to our use of RS (they would have to be sued successfully first) and the decision at Barrett v. Rosenthal, which protects on-line (such as Wikipedia) republishing of libelous information on the internet. The originator of the libel can be sued, but republishers (ergo editors and the WMF) are protected, even if they deliberately republish things they know to be false and libelous with the intent to harm. That was the context of the case. The case was disappointing. They got away with lying about people and hurting them, and the court sided with the libelers.

We aren't getting anywhere close to that here, and in fact, since the allegations in the dossier are getting confirmed more and more, documenting the existence of a nasty allegation against someone is not libel if it's true. We aren't making the accusation. We don't do that, but we are often required by policy to document notable untrue libel when it occurs. But I digress.... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point, and I hadn't thought about personal liability here. Such liability is also unrelated to the NLT policy, and editors probably cannot give actual legal advice (and WMF legal generally won't). It's never unsafe to not edit a page, of course, but I agree that individual editors are unlikely to be targets. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, BullRangifer - you are correct, and I do appreciate the manner in which you presented it. Tryp, thank you for your response. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Link has changed

The link in the opening section to the Foundation is no longer a direct link as the appropriate URL has changed(and is now a redirect), but I do not know how to change it to the current one.331dot (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Dumb question: What to do if someone does want to take legal action

A user came into Discord today asking about where he should go if he does indeed want to take legal action against a specific individual. It was not obvious to me that the channel got to the correct answer, which was "see if you can find that person's contact information". Given how discussions at WT:Harassment have gone of late... I don't know if that was the best answer or even a right answer.

Took a look here and didn't see anything on suggested procedure for someone, which may be because no-one has thought there might be legitimate reason to use the legal system or may be because of WP:Legal disclaimer or ...

Thoughts appreciated. --Izno (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Was the specific individual against whom legal action might be taken a Wikipedia account, or someone outside of the editing community? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  The intention in this specific case was an unnamed Wikipedia administrator on an unnamed wiki. The more-exact question asked was to the effect of "Do I send the legal letter [indicating my lawsuit] to the WMF or do I attempt to find the user's contact information to send it directly to the user?" --Izno (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  In that case, definitely do not try to find the contact info, as that will lead to serious problems about the harassment policy. And I agree with the advice about talk to your lawyer. And I would add that they should expect to be blocked from editing (assuming the plaintiff is also an editor) for as long as the legal action is going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  I want to add that I think it would be counterproductive to add any guidance about this to the policy page here, because we do not want to encourage that sort of thing. Either someone has enough brains to know that they should talk to a lawyer, or they don't have enough brains for us to be concerned about them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think the best answer to this is "Talk to your lawyer". ~ GB fan 20:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  That was one of the responses as well and I think the preferable one in the general case. --Izno (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• It is worth addressing this dichotomy between Wikipedia and the real world, given that in the real world, "legal threats" are, to put it bluntly, legal. It is possible for one person to use Wikipedia to engage in a number of behaviors that would give another a legal cause of action. These include copyright infringement, defamation, certain privacy violations, stalking, extortion, even unfair competition. Even though we have internal policies prohibiting these behaviours, it is somewhat problematic that our rules bar editors from raising their actual legal rights onsite. Per GB fan, right now, an editor with a genuine legal claim to compensation for an injury arising from the editing of another editor would need to hire a lawyer and probably seek a court order from the WikiMedia Foundation to divulge any information necessary to pursue the litigation. bd2412 T 20:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Question about language we can use about TOS and paid COI

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard#Updating Paid COI page of the wizard. Sdkb (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Clarify this is a no-drama clause

As also suggested above (What to do if someone does want to take legal action), this policy is cause for confusion.

Some suggested changes:

Withdrawn suggestion, more compact suggestion in the comments

− Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors. It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia. Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. + Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. In this context, a legal threat is a threat to get off-wiki parties involved based on law. Some common examples: filing a lawsuit or reporting something to the authorities. Note that ArbCom and on-wiki processes are ''not'' of the legal variety. Those are based on wiki policy, ''not'' law. Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing until they agree to have the threat removed and confirm that they understand this policy. − + This does '''not''' mean you are not allowed to sue a fellow Wikimedian or report them to the authorities. If you believe there are sufficient grounds to do so, it is recommended that you contact your lawyer. If you need contact details of the other party, ask for their details privately by mail if possible or (if they haven't enabled mail) post a neutral message on their talk page (without suggesting any sort of legal action) asking them to contact you with their information. If they don't respond, tough cookies. Just '''don't''' announce your plans on-wiki. This is an anti-drama policy, not an attempt to strip anyone of their legal rights. − Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention if there is doubt. Blocking for legal threats is generally not such an urgent need that it must be done before determining whether an ambiguous statement was genuinely a threat of legal action. + Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent legal threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention if there is doubt. Blocking for legal threats is generally not such an urgent need that it must be done before determining whether an ambiguous statement was genuinely a threat of legal action. − Instead of posting a legal threat, you should try to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute-resolution procedures. If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation. + − That a legal dispute exists between users, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a valid reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia. Editors involved in a legal dispute should not edit articles about parties to the dispute, given the potential conflict of interest. + Needless to say, instead of considering any kind of legal action it is better for all parties if you can resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute-resolution procedures. Editors who are involved in a legal dispute should not edit articles about parties to the dispute, given the potential conflict of interest. If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation.

The whole page may benefit from some restructuring though. My suggested text is longer, but it includes the answer to the question above, which the current text does not. - Alexis Jazz 20:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Break

I would oppose that addition as too wordy among other things. What is the question above that isn't answered? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: "A user came into Discord today asking about where he should go if he does indeed want to take legal action against a specific individual."

The current policy implies that you shouldn't, which (to me) is obviously just wrong. If you have a good reason to take legal action against someone, you should. No matter if it's your roommate, the tobacco industry, your grandmother, your boss or a Wikimedian. (though as always: try to resolve disputes out of court first..) Wikipedia can have a "no legal drama on Wikipedia" policy, Wikipedia can encourage the use of internal conflict resolution processes, but Wikipedia shouldn't try to dissuade users from exercising their lawful rights.

If you and others agree on that core principle, working out how to make a better worded policy will mostly be a formality. - Alexis Jazz 22:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It states you should not post legal threats. It doesn't say don't take legal action. We can strengthen that if you think it needs it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I think it does. Do you have suggestions? - Alexis Jazz 23:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I clarified it a little. [5] SarahSV ^(talk) 23:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thanks, that's an improvement. But I'd like to see the text making a more clear distinction between making legal threats and actually taking legal action. I admit it's not strictly in the current text, but when you read between the lines it does suggest thou shalt not take legal action against a Wikipedian. For example, "Users who make legal threats on Wikipedia are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding." would suggest that if you wish to be unblocked you better withdraw that lawsuit or promise you won't be starting one. It's not in the words, but this is likely how Joe Schmoe would interpret this. Because how could a legal threat be "outstanding"? How could it be withdrawn? It can't. You can agree to its removal, you can agree to keep legal talk off-wiki, but the "threat" won't cease to exist.

Similarly there's the "🚫 lawyer" image with the caption "Use dispute resolution rather than legal threats, for everyone's sake!" which is, to be frank, rubbish. Dispute resolution is not an alternative for legal threats. Dispute resolution is an alternative for a lawsuit and trying that first should be encouraged. Legal threats are not an alternative for anything. They can even be useful sometimes, but in those instances they could be kept off-wiki. As an example, mailing someone "I will contact my lawyer next monday about this, FYI" could be considered a legal threat, but it's a useful one as it allows the other party to consider what they should do and informs them about what is actually going on. Of course, "threats" come in many different shapes and sizes and not all of them are bad. - Alexis Jazz 00:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: For a better overview:

• Remove the image from the page. (I don't think it's very helpful or funny)
• Replace "make/making legal threats" with "post/posting legal threats" (occurs five times on the page)
• Replace "while the threats are outstanding" with something more accurate (for example "until the user acknowledges that discussing legal drama with the community is not helpful")
• Add "publicly" to the nutshell ("If you post a legal threat publicly on Wikipedia", no need for bold, just add the word)
• Add anywhere in the text that if you are seriously considering legal action, you should talk to a real, off-wiki lawyer, not to Wikipedians. Something like "Legal disputes are none of the Wikipedia community's business. Talk to a lawyer instead." would suffice.

That would likely be sufficient to take away most of the between-the-lines meaning that users could be reading into it. I for one would be happy with that. - Alexis Jazz 01:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of the policy is to prevent the chilling effect that legal threats have on participation in the project. The current wording prohibits such behavior, and I oppose any change that either validates litigious behavior (harmful to the project), or seeks to give professional advice to people who are considering a lawsuit (not our place to advise). In particular, if someone needs help with serving process, they should ask their lawyer, and we should not advise them that Wikipedia policy is to politely ask the subject of a threatened legal action for their contact information. If people want to use lawyers to waste other contributors' time and money, we unfortunately cannot prevent that. However, we can keep that type of thing in a courtroom, where it is regulated by things like the FRCP and professional ethics rules, and not on Wikipedia, where it would serve only to scare other contributors away. ST47 (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: "validates litigious behavior". It's not for us to validate or otherwise. It's none of our business. If an editor is being harassed (and I mean seriously, not wikihounding), they must feel comfortable about contacting the police or retaining a lawyer, and not be worried about whether they'll be blocked. What matters is that they not make threats about it on Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, after saving I realized I had just repeated what you said, except that your post was more eloquent! SarahSV ^(talk) 00:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, there's nothing wrong with making appropriate reports to the police for that sort of thing, and no version of the NLT policy has ever stood in the way of doing so. (And if that police department needs information about who is behind a specific account, they know how to ask for it.) If you are in that position of retaining counsel and seriously considering a lawsuit, the first thing your lawyer should tell you is not to contact the other party directly, and not to talk about the case in public. If someone is asking a Discord server how to serve a lawsuit, as in the question above, that's probably a good sign that it isn't serious enough for that person to have spoken to a lawyer yet. The only advice to that person should be "talk to a lawyer". ST47 (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@ST47: The advice may in hindsight indeed be misplaced. The intention of it was to direct legal communication towards happening off-wiki. Empty threats have next to no value unless posted publicly and those are (I think) the most toxic in public discussions. As you said, policy isn't law. It doesn't stop anyone from filing a lawsuit or the press from covering it. I wouldn't say that using lawyers is always a waste, it's a last resort, but context is everything.

When you say no version of the NLT policy has ever stood in the way of doing so, I'd like to note that some of the text, like Users who make legal threats on Wikipedia are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. can suggest (even if that wasn't the intention) that reports to the police need to be withdrawn if an editor wants to be unblocked. Assuming that's not what it meant, it's a poor choice of words. See also my compact suggestion above. (5 bullet points) - Alexis Jazz 01:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the current language is deliberately shaped to say "if you've made a legal threat against someone on Wikipedia, whether that was on Wikipedia or off, you will be blocked". Please check the archives. --Izno (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: The archives are quite long. If you can't find the exact discussion, could you be any more specific about when it might have taken place or how to find it? - Alexis Jazz 01:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I only started following the page in the past year or three. I'm skimming the past couple archives. It's possible I was confusing it for the "arbitrary break 2" thread at the bottom of archive 4, or possible what's toward the top of archive 5 (TonyBallioni's commentary about receiving a threatening email), or possiblye "Recent changes" in the same. --Izno (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

My cat has legal rights too

I will seek a lawyer for not letting me sue people for talking about my cat on Wikipedia. My cat has his own rights and you need to stop taking them away. I will file a lawsuit against Mr. Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation. Regards, --100.6.86.58 (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)(a bad person)

You can write about your cat on your user page, but you need to make an account first :) 47A74 (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)