Wikivoyage talk:No real world threats

No legal threats
Moved from Meta:Wikivoyage/Migration/New policies:

Here's another policy that we have not ever needed, but one that is very common on WMF projects. Should we just adopt the same policy as on Wikipedia? --Peter Talk 14:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That policy seems reasonable to me, and it would be a good idea to include such a policy, as you never know when a business may get angry about something. Ikan Kekek 04:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems OK. If it is good enough for Wikipedia it should be OK or at least a good place to start from. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking now of just writing a No_real_world_threats policy. We've talked briefly about physical threats before (lawsuits had never been an issue prior to Internet Brands trying to SLAPP folks around), but don't have a policy about them. I'd like to make it clear that threats of physical or legal harm are both not tolerated in any form on our wiki, and will likely be met with bans. --Peter Talk 03:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Peter, i think the WP policy is a good starting point. Do you already started? I would prefer to broaden the policy also to simple no (legal) threats policy. We had heated discussions in the past, too. I think common sense should rule that no threats or legal intimidation should be accepted. Jc8136 15:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Here it is. Much of it is copied from Wikipedia:Wikipedia:No legal threats, and the bulk of it has to do with legal threats, rather than physical threats. But it's nice to have physical threats covered, so we don't have to write a different policy, since they are about as simple a thing to deal with as there can be. --Peter Talk 21:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good to me. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I also like it. Atsirlin 07:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Closed -- Policy wts:No real world threats accepted and added to en:Wikivoyage:Policy outline. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving to en
I dared to c+p the legal threads policy from general to en to get the discussion started. Peter is right that we should agree on that policy prior to the going live. Jc8136 (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

Who's your daddy?
The page currently has "If your issue involves Wikivoyage itself, you should contact Wikivoyage's parent organization, the Wikivoyage Foundation." Should that now be "the Wikimedia Foundation"? Should it be more specific, perhaps give an address for the legal dep't or for some administrator? Pashley (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be better. -- A l i c e ✉ 23:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Employees
Should a distinction be made between corporate accounts and the (private?) accounts of users that work for (but are not self-declared) representatives of litigious employers?

To me it seems clear that, for example, just because somebody declares himself as working for the BBC in some non-representative capacity (eg: as an installation engineer or videographer) they should not have to refrain from editing Wikitravel while the BBC is suing the WMF for copyright violation.

The recently added passage about "Naturally, those editing on behalf of a corporation that has initiated lawsuits or threats of any real world harm will also be banned from editing." may need clarification. -- A l i c e ✉ 23:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The wording "editing on behalf of a corporation" is clear enough and narrow enough as to avoid catching anyone whose activity here has absolutely nothing to do with their day job. I don't see this as an issue of concern. K7L (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Explain a reversion
User:TeleComNasSprVen added a See also section and a red link to a No suicide threats page. I reverted.

Such a page seems utterly unnecessary to me for several reasons, not least because suicide happens in the real world so the existing page covers it. Pashley (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Pashley, and thanks for sharing your concerns. On further consideration about the topic of suicide, I agreed that another page seemed superfluous when it seems to lie within the scope of "no real world threats". Therefore, I was going to rewrite that link into a subsection of this page documenting the procedures when someone issues a threat of suicide, since on Wikipedia that differs quite a bit from standard legal threats or threats of physical harm to another. See Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm for this; some users have suggested contacting emergency@wikimedia.org as procedures for dealing with these, as well as not blocking users who threaten suicide for fear of ticking them off. Therefore, I believe those pages should be created as redirects to a subsection of this page. What do you think, and how do we cover the procedures for dealing with suicides? Regards, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced it is necessary, but it sounds reasonable. I'd like to hear other opinions. Pashley (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Pashley, sorry to bother you again, but there's been some new developments and I've seem to have made progress on an altogether different end. We now have a page at Meta Wiki, meta:Threats of harm, that might be better updated and equipped to handle this issue in general, which I asked a local admin there to import. While it's not (yet) a global policy, I think it is a pretty good advice page on procedure to follow in case of suicide threats, and it'll be much easier to update and coordinate from Meta Wiki. So I'm again reconsidering having a soft-redirected page to Meta instead now. As I've explained before though, my main concern is the lack of mention of emergency at wikimedia dot org as a proper communication channel for handling these issues. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)