http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...#User:Sponge417

An IP who claims to be a lawyer asks who to contact for wikipedia's legal team, and they immediately block the IP, then discuss it for ridiculous amounts of time.

Toddst1 finishes out his side of the conversation with this one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=230339820

"Sorry, but none of you nay-sayers has been able to answer my question about what possible activity other than legal issues might involve the need for a lawyer. Given that and all you smart folks, I feel pretty justified. Thanks for those who had the courage to support me. To those that opposed (all of you) without being able answering my question, I bid you a good night."

This is classic retarded Wikipedianism.

NLT is to prevent every 15 year old from shouting, "I'll sue you".

Asking whom to contact for legal information - well, is pretty dense if you know anything about wikipedia (or dense in general, as in "please, how may I best sue you?"). Having said that - such information should be readily obtainable for persons who need it for serious purposes. Is it on Wikipedia? Most things about WMF are not (such as their address), but, the legal? Hmmmm...

NLT doesn't mean that editors on Wikipedia can't be sued. The teen squad still hasn't absorbed that. The only bottleneck is that most of them don't have any money, and it's not viewed as interesting, even if it is deserved.

Agreed. It's there to prevent intimidation and threats. Simply asking who the legal counsel is because you think letting an underage kid post all of his personal info on wikipedia is an awful idea doesn't seem like the kind of thing that should be met with a permanent ticket off the ranch.

Godwin isn't that hard to find. His actual email isn't a first google hit kind of a thing, but that's probably a spam protector. He's not exactly reclusive, esp. for such a famous person.

I have no idea what the premise for this person asking was, of course, and won't look into it.

For their sake, I hope it wasn't a serious issue requiring real legal assistance, as they'll not get help. But asking such a question on Wikipedia is the "newbie gets eaten by the pirhanas" sort of thing you see and shake your head about. Poor beast.


THAT was the problem? The reason to ask for the legal counsel? To protect a child/adolescent? To look for a voice of authority? Gah.

I rest my case. Dysfunctional is an understatement. These people aren't lobotomized sheep. They are lobotomized .... I-don't-know-whats.

The IP that represented itself as the noted Tucson AZ attorney Ann M. Haralambie actually originates from Atlanta GA. It's also listed as a suspected sockpuppet of Jamesinc14, along with a couple of hundred others.

Sceptre and the other kids on ANI did handle it laughably though.

Was that who asked for the WP lawyer? (cant be bothered to go 'there' and look - cooties and all that).

Wikipedia's amateur lawyers do not see the difference between a threat and obstructing the legal process.

If an editor engages in illegal conduct on Wikipedia and if another editor objects to the illegal acts, if an admin just blocks the plantiff for making legal threats and takes no other action, the admin may find he is being sued for assisting a person in the commission of a crime.

This is all assuming any judge has a freaking-flying-clue what goes on on Wikipedia. And that any lawyer save for NYBrad grasps that bizarre miniplanet.

You speak of an imaginary world, where people attempt to make logical linkages between wikiworld and real world, and they do it in a court room. Never going to happen.

pYou could say "in a matter of time lawyers will understand Wikipedia", but then you have to account for the fact that people like "Swatjester" and "JoshuaZ" will graduate, pass the bar in their state, and be unleashed on the planet as purveyors of justice.

In short, the time-factor is working against normality coming to Wikipedia, and legality coming to grips with this bizarre culture. It's more like the opposite will transpire firstly. The people from Wikipedia culture are going to spill over and corrupt the real world.

There is another important part of No Legal Threats, and that is that the Foundation feels its a lot better off dealing with any suer through a single legal channel with a competant law talking guy, rather than that in addition to a retired farmer in Zimbabwe, two Californian highschoolers, a locksmith from Poland with minimal command of English and an Argentinian janitor. Who would you rather handle legal issues directed at you? It would be dumb to allow random editors to handle legal matters.

"IP address blocked for 1 week for making legal threats in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Legal info provided in block notice. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC) "

Seems to me that the person who was looking for legal justice is an idiot to be asking whom to contact at the Wikimedia Foundation. I mean, it's not like the Foundation is hiding its whereabouts.

Yeh, this was a lot of fecking stupidity all round. Give me the days of "I WILL SUE YOU IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY" any day.

Welcome maiawatatos.

Thanks and apologies for the rather incoherent first post - I blame a few too many bottles of Old Peculier.

That being said, it was (on the face of things) one of the silliest blocks I've seen for a few weeks.

That's what got User:Hypocrite blocked indefinitely. He said that to JzG just so he would get blocked.

But then he came back only to be blocked indefinitely for trolling.

What you wrote makes no sense. And you didn't grasp the point. In fact, your own point is ridiculous.

WMF has a lawyer. No one can act as their lawyer, ever, as a volunteer. So your comment about farmers, locksmiths, etc, is weird.

The NLT is used inappropriately to ban any discussion of legal matters. That's stupid. And it's censorship.

Maybe you should re-read the policy, and what I said. The reason you get unblocked once the threat is withdrawn *or the legal proceedings are concluded* does not fit with what you are alledging. If someone makes a legal threat on a talk page somewhere, I might be inclined to handle it myself (well, I am not that dumb, but some are) and then there would already be an uncontrolled history of nonlawyers handling a legal matter by the first time Godwin got wind of it. I have littled doubt that would induce a whole lot of extra headache for him.

That it is routinely misapplied is not here or there, I am not sure how to make people read policies before using them. But I am sure the moment English Wikipedia decided any random volunteer could deal with legal threats Mike Godwin would reach for his canopener and his canned whoop-ass. It would be disasterosly dumb to do otherwise.

I was once threatened with a block for "making a legal threat" for stating that, in my opinion, someone else's comments bordered on libel.

The "no legal threats" policy is intended to serve two purposes. One of them is to keep legal battles that initiated off of Wikipedia from crawling onto Wikipedia. The other is to dissuade people from threatening legal action as a club in a dispute on Wikipedia. The current usage of the policy, however, has been interpreted as license to block anyone who mentions in any way that lawyers, courts, or legal obligations exist.

Precisely.

One hilarous time I saw Jimbo suggest that a person not republish libel (by republishing an old version of the article).

The person told Jimbo "no legal threats".

Hilarious.


You need to learn to read. The point isn't about non-lawyers handling anything. The point is that people might be able to discuss a legal term, or the possibility of application (in principle) without a teenybopper squealing "legal threat". Non-lawyers often invoke lawsuits. They usually hire lawyers to do it. Not sure if you are aware of that.

Talking about the law, and about legal terminology is not a legal threat. Not sure you are aware of that. I suggest you "re-read the policy" (seriously, I don't know why I bother). Perhaps you live in a world where only lawyers are able to discuss the law. I live in a world where I interact mostly with people who possess sufficient intelligence to discuss the law, whether they be lawyers or not. Those people hire lawyers when they see fit. (ps: It's spelled "alleged" - no "d").

Re-read Kelly Martins post. She wrote a very nice, clear response.

The real problem is that Wikipedia has become something of a haven for the "meme" that the Internet exists in a pocket of nonreal "cyberspace" detached from reality, and more importantly, detached from "meatspace" law. This conceptualization of cyberspace, which is flatly wrong for very obvious reasons, became quite popular in the mid-90s, especially with armchair anarchists, libertarians, and the like. Wikipedia attracted a lot of these people in its early days, and they have played a substantial role in shaping Wikipedia's community and culture.

As a result, many people in Wikipedia hold the firm belief that Wikipedia is a law unto itself, and that any attempt to impose "meatspace" law on Wikipedia is philosophically wrong and best ignored or derided.

There are two things that exacerbate this. One of them is the Foundation's immunity to legal action under Section 230. The other is the widespread culture of anonymity on Wikipedia. These combine to make most of the actors on Wikipedia effectively immune to prosecution in real courts, further perpetuating the myth that Wikipedia is "outside the law".

The fact that Wikipedia , as a body corporate, routinely acts as if it were immune to the law will eventually result in Section 230 being rewritten (either legislatively or judicially) so as not to cover the Wikimedia Foundation.

The *purpose* and the *practice* are somewhat different, and NLT is probably more abused than most. No legal threats does not say "Do not make legal threats", it says "If you are considering or planning legal action, talk to Mike Godwin, and stop talking to 15 year old fuckwits from Benin who think they understand the laws of all the nations where it might be relevent." This is a third major reason for NLT, in addition to the two Kelly lists (she is right that those are both important concerns, but I do not think they are overriding.)

Beyond that, I am unsure that attacking someone's typographical error is as good as a simple strawman. It comes off as grasping at straws, rather than arranging them into a shape crows find displeasing.

Of course NLT is abused. I am sure lots of people try to enforce it after only reading the title. Most policies are used this way, but NLT is pretty effective, since few people ever bother to read it. That is not the point, though, just the politics.

If I wanted to take legal action, I'd call a lawyer, not ask Mike Godwin's permission. Talking to Mike Godwin is good for negotiating only. (Negotiating is a good option prior to taking legal action - but it is a personal choice). To consider (as is done) that mention of legal words is a "legal threat" is ridiculous. And that's the current standard: Ridiculous.

I think you need to re-read the policy, as it is passably coherent, and doesn't mesh with your understanding:

QUOTE

The bottom line is that users should not ever make threats against one another in any form, legal or otherwise. If you feel strongly about a situation and wish to pursue legitimate complaint channels on Wikipedia, please just go ahead and do so without making threats. Threats erode trust and eventually damage the collabortive environment necessary to create a good encyclopedia.

"If you feel strongly about a situation and wish to pursue legitimate complaint channels on Wikipedia, please just go ahead and do so without making threats". I agree with this completely - and not only about legal threats - about most things. It's a basic, "don't bug us with a lot of whining and annoying threatening language - just DO IT if you are going to do it". Most people don't DO IT, so "hush it up" please. This is like a lot of Wikipedia rules. The verbatim is well written. The way that rule (and most Wikipedia rules) are applied is garbage. No other word: garbage.

When the "no legal threats" policy was introduced, the WMF did not have a lawyer. The "talk to Mike Godwin" bullshit is a latecomer to the field, and frankly is mostly irrelevant because Godwin generally deflects legal complaints about content with a "not our problem, we're immune, go fuck yourself" response instead of actually dealing with them, and they end up bounced back to the community, who then blocks (again) the complainer for making legal threats. The sole exception to this is when the complainer manages to stroke Jimbo's overblown ego the right way; in that case the OFFICE-hammer comes down on whoever the complainer wants, in exchange for some quid pro quo that typically involves Jimmy getting access to money or celebrity or something of that sort.

Well, it is often easier to say "Look, fix this unreasonable thing or I will call a lawyer" and save yourself the $600 you would pay for the lawyer to call up Mike and say the same thing. Depends on what you want, but when you are threatening legal action, presumably you would settle for some rectification, and then it makes sense to call Mike. If you just want to sue, announcing it on Wikipedia will probably get you blocked, but does not seem to be of consequence.

Of course, nobody is ever asked if they understand NLT before running for adminship, this is probably a mistake, but it comes up so little that nobody thinks of it. I suspect it often falls into the category of things that are procedurally bad, but where few are unhappy with the outcome so nobody raises a stink.

Kelly: Mike now, previously Danny or whoever's job it was to deal with unhappy phone calls.

That's because most of those people are fools who think that talking to the oppositions lawyer is a good idea, and have no wherewithall to understand how to make and win a lawsuit. Or that talking to Mike Godwin makes no sense unless he takes you seriously, which is usually if he sees that you have some teeth in your talk. Like talking to any lawyer (or anyone, really).





His ego?

I thought it was something else. Never mind me. Dirty mind.

Suddenly recalls this sex-related discussion is about Jimbo. Goes to take stomach medicine.

Yes, this is how it works. Except for that if the order of your story is mixed up a bit, "something of that sort", "celebrity", "OFFICE:HAMMER", and "access"........

...... you wind up with Jimbo's soiled laundry sold on ebay, and REALLY REALLY REALLY hope that "no one got pregnant".

Suddenly recalls this sex-related discussion is about Jimbo. Goes to take stomach medicine.

This reminds me of



Wow. That's dumb. Who pays 600 bucks for that? Talking and letters rarely work - whether from lawyers or not (if you are with an intractable party). Invoking the lawsuit often does something, and sometimes will avoid the lawsuit itself (depending on the arrogance of the other party (in this case, the arrogance is massive, and letters and talk do nothing).



(rolls on floor laughing). Threatening legal suits obtains rectification? Har. How old are you?
Have you ever invoked a lawsuit? (I have). Ever won one? (I have - two actually).
I hasten to note that I tried to not sue. I think suing is a hassle. It was required.
"People you need to sue" are assholes who won't react otherwise.

Allow me to explain, grasshopper, the quasi-non-litigious perspective:

• "People who you need to sue" feel invincible and are hopelessly arrogant.
• "People who feel invincible and are hopelessly arrogant" don't cooperate, nor do they negotiate.
• "People who feel invincible and are hopelessly arrogant" also don't listen to threats
• Hence, "People who you need to sue" never believe they will lose[/b], until they do.
• And gosh, it's fun watching them be shocked at that point.

Har. You are the classic Wikipedian Kelly just described. You think that Wikipedia is a little bubble that is immune from the niceties of the real world. Everyone understands "no legal threats" who can read and reason. Unfortunately, the concepts of "reading" and "reasoning" differ in the world of Wikipedia. I'm sorry to report.

(and ps: Kelly, I agree with you 100% on the Wikipedia concept of bubble-protection from meatspace - I've stated the same thing, offline, re: this subculture; pss:, you are spot-on re: Section 230, of coruse)

Some hyperbole may have been involved here. There is a distinction between "Legal Threat" and "Legal Action" that is not being drawn wellm, by either of us. By the time a lawsuit arises, the "Legal Threats" are over. NLT says you stay blocked until the lawsuit is completed, although this is a seperate issue.


Same, Legal Threats ™ and Legal Actions are different. You cannot take Legal Action on Wikipedia, anyways. If you believe threats are useless, why make them?

This, I mean, is why NLT are very different in theory and practice.

But you are wrong about the rest. Everyone can understand No Legal Threats who *does* read and reason. This is very different from *can*.


Hmm, I think so. Maybe Danny previous to Brad, I have been lead to believe Danny did this at some point, maybe I am mistaken. Either way, it is not terribly important, just "The Office" rather than "The Goobers on the Website".

Nope. You need to reread the policy. I actually agree with their policy. It's just that they don't follow it.
Separate.

My beef is with the blocking of people for saying "boo" (oops, I mean "libel").


"Goobers on the website" are also known as "people" who needn't be blocked for mentioning legal words as a discussion basis. But this is too simple of a concept for some people.

I have not objected to objecting to this. It is not the way things should be done.


I am not talking about people who threaten legal action. In this case, "Goobers on the website" refers to those who would haphazardly attempt to deal with other editors who have threatened legal action, were there no NLT policy.

You know - you have the exact same verbal tenor, tonality and logic of Jimbo Wales.

It's uncanny.