This is not a big thing, but I'd thought I'd raise the topic here first, for on Wikipedia it could be possibly viewed as a "legal treat"

There is an article within Wikipedia which deals with a murder in Australia committed by minors.
The Court has ruled that at least one of the perpetrator's cannot be named. I did a Google search and none of the commerical media outlets (including Reuters & CNN) makes mention of this individuals name, however that individual is named in the article by a Australian Editor - (happens to be a admin).

In my viewpoint this Editor is clearly in contempt of court. Would the Wikipedia Foundation be in contempt?

It's like people have never heard of providing links.

The nerve!

There's actually a whole category devoted to Murder committed by minors, one of which is the somewhat hoaxy-looking Acquired Death Aversion Deficiency syndrome (T-H-L-K-D)...

Damn wikipeder is awsome!

This one even has the minor's picture.

Here's another.

Kinda reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer offers to take a foreign guest to see a retarded minor get executed in Texas. Anyone remember that episode?

This happened quite frequently on the Baby P article. There were concerns about editorial control, which I answered at Talk:Death_of_Baby_P#editorial_control. I doubt the WMF would be held in contempt of court unless they were aware of the problem, and declined to do anything about it.

Please inform oversight-l@wikimedia.org of the problem so that they can remove the problem, if they decide that it is necessary. Once it has been removed, if you believe the addition was intentional/malicious, report it to Arbcom, ANI, WP, or otherwise make hay about it however you wish. Unless of course the Australian admin was me, in which hail me as a freedom fighter.

The Australian editor may not be aware of the court order, in which case we need to document the court order on the article, or add an edit notice for that page.

That category is mostly just Americans and Japanese. A few Brits, and one or two Canadians and New Zealanders. No Australians that I could see.

Do you say "Wikipedia" emphasising the second syllable and ending with a rising inflection? Just asking...

Trick or Treat!

I think there's a clear distinction between acting like you're contemplating or threatening to bring legal action yourself about something (or get an agent of yours to do so, or notify some authority to get them to do so, etc.), and raising the issue that you believe something on Wikipedia could possibly get the site in trouble somewhere (but making it clear that you do not intend to push the issue off-site in order to cause this sort of legal action to occur). If you intend the latter, you should be sure to phrase it in a way that makes this clear.