Wikipedia talk:No legal threats

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the No legal threats page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

@Largoplazo: Yes, that's a threat and I would have blocked but it's just silliness from an ephemeral IP. I have no objection if someone else wants to block, and I will block if you alert me to a repeat of the disruption. You might like to sign again. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 29 § Template:Sub judice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on

Now, the user that is blocked will find it difficult - unless they are already an experienced Wikipedian - to navigate Wikipedia's bureaucracy to both get unblocked and to get actual assistance regarding the content of the article. Currently,

So what should be the eventual outcome of this? Should we consider elevating

An effort should be make to communicate on the talk page and to examine the article but under no circumstances should the user be allowed to engage in ongoing legal intimidation towards our users, nor should we be attempting to determine the legal validity of the threats. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Communicating on the talk page with the aggrieved user, and blocking the aggrieved user for legal intimidation (and in some cases, removing talk page access) are two mutually exclusive principles. I think this is the argument that is being made by those who want to elevate

WP:BLP standards. WaltCip-(talk) 14:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Related to the above, I feel strongly that the blockee needs to understand the situation. At the moment, there is an incredibly tiny, very-small print link to this article, but the block text itself merely says they've been blocked for making threats. You have to remember that the person who made the threat probably feels very strongly that something unjust has happened. Their hormones are up, they're angry. They're not going to see the tiny link, or follow it, and they'll never know why they got blocked. They will simply jump to the conclusion that Wikipedia is not interested in accuracy, sources, or "the truth" but is merely suppressing those who disagree with what "the administrators" think. These threats usually come from people who do not edit regularly, and do not know how Wikipedia ticks.

The situation would be much improved if the standard block message were improved, to explain (1) that WP takes accuracy seriously and has dispute resolution procedures; (2) that the temporary block is imposed because the dispute must be held in one place only, either a court or via WP's own dispute-resolution system; (3) that the editor is free to withdraw their threat, and choose instead to make use of WP's own procedures (with a clear link to instructions on how to do so). This would make it clear the block is not a vindictive act. Of course the block is also there to prevent the chilling effect of legal language, but to be honest, that's a lesser problem. Legal threats happen daily, and most of us are so anonymous we couldn't care less about a huffy comment; we're not put off. Also, you cannot calm an angry person by shouting at them; you have to sort out the situation first, and only then explain the emotional consequences ("chilling effect") of their threatening behaviour. I would strongly recommend some serious debate on improving the block text. Elemimele (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of a situation I saw just the other day (sorry I don't have the link handy, I'll add it if I find it). An IP editor mentioned some concerns about a

WP:LEGAL, and treat the new editor's comment as a good-faith suggestion of the content being libelous, although treated as not serious enough for a RevDel by consensus? DavidLeeLambert (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Semi protected edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Include a link to WikiProject Law as a hatnote at the top of the article, such as this:

172.112.210.32 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Since there's already a hatnote related to the LEGAL shortcut, I added the WikiProject to that line. Firefangledfeathers 17:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please revert Special:diff/1059824910. There was wide discussion in 2018, which mostly considered the removed paragraph uncontroversial, the removal seems less trivial than the edit summary implies and requires some discussion. As for being "contradictory to actual practice", I can see some problems with using the fact that a policy isn't respected as an argument for changing the policy. 176.247.135.220 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I trust the person who made the removal. Additionally, policy pages should mirror practice, as that is demonstrable consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, in theory, practice should also mirror policy pages and the civility policy survived similar arguments for deletion. Anyway the end of the Perceived legal threats section has almost the same content, making this more a matter of prominence and the edit summary more puzzling; if the main concern is wikilawyering, it looks like a defendable choice. I am also confident that this will be enough to bring to the change the amount of scrutiny it deserves. 176.247.135.220 (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page gives info-en-qwikipedia.org, while the edit notice on

WP:AN gives oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. Which is preferred? -- Visviva (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply