User talk:Glevant

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glevant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

216.231.41.66, Legal Threat Withdrawn

Decline reason:

This account is not blocked. If your IP is, request unblock on its talk page. — Sandstein 18:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would like to request that Wikipedia unblock the IP address 216.231.41.66, which belongs to a design firm, not to me. They had nothing to do with the dispute, which I believed had been resolved with Natalie Erin, a Wikipedia administrator.

I remain unconvinced that when I wrote that action will be taken this should have been construed as a “legal threat”. At no time were any statements made indicating legal action was the next step. Anyone who has had a dispute with a service company would know it is common to state your intent to follow-up on a matter.

I also believe the user: Leesome was libeling the subject of the article during the discussion concerning deletion. This user seems to not know how to make contributions without being inflammatory. The intent was never to prevent deletion, but a request that if it was to be done, it would be done respectfully, without personal attacks. And, that if the user continued the attacks, I would pursue it. I tried to explain this to Natalie, but ended up in a debate concerning the definition of libel.

On any account, please block this account, not the above IP address. It is used by company, with numerous employees, who might make valuable contributions to the project. I have no intention of dealing any further with Wikipedia.

Please consider my request.

(Glevant (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Your statement was interpreted as a legal threat because of the last statement: "Our letter to Wikipedia demands censure of Leesome for libel. We are committed to pursuing this issue. Please be aware that your statements are being monitored and action will be taken." If you are retracting this statement, your IP address will be unblocked. Otherwise I will have to block this account as well, as it is circumventing your block and an inappropriate use of a second account.

The articles in question have already been deleted and the AfD discussions were courtesy blanked. You can view the completed discussions here and here. You seem to feel that this deletion is the work of a rogue editor. Let me assure you that these deletions were done through our normal processes and many people commented on the discussions. I would suggest that you drop your campaign against the user who started the discussions, as it is quite obvious that his feelings are shared by many people.

However, if you would like to challenge the deletions, you can pursue deletion review. Natalie (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you have no basis to refer to this other editor as a "rogue editor". As I have pointed out to you, his/her opinion on the articles was shared by many other people. I'm also not really sure what you mean by "I cannot commit to any requirement." What requirement are you referring to?

Our policies neither protect nor punish libel. Wikipedia, as a content hoster, actually has no power to even judge libel as it is not an agent of the US court system, so complaints about libel have to be handled outside of this website. Our policies do require factual claims made in article spaces to be supported by references, but this particular editor's claims were his or her opinion and are not actually libelous. The policy forbidding legal threats is intended to prevent other editors from using threats of legal sanction as a cudgel to silence people. Natalie (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the action of the user Leesome, except that I have seen no evidence of them violating any policies. Their characterizing this author as a vanity author and so on were obviously their personal opinion, and Wikipedia generally does not censure users for their personal opinion unless it would be exceptionally divisive. And while your IP was blocked, you are obviously editing or would not be able to post on my talk page. If I was trying to punish you, I would have blocked this username already. However, it seems much more likely that you have been caught up in a process you weren't terribly familiar with, and we try to be reasonably forgiving of innocent mistakes here. Additionally, I don't recall titling any post with the words "…threatening to sue Wikipedia” - are you possibly confusing myself with someone else, or referencing someone else's comment?

I'm quite familiar with defamation, thank you, having worked in journalism in college. However, the important aspect you gloss over in your explanation is that a statement has to be provably true or false to be libelous. A person's opinion, expressed as such, isn't falsifiable and thus not libelous. You have also provided no evidence that this statement was said maliciously or without due care, and I doubt you will find such evidence as I doubt this user was speaking with deliberate intent to harm. Regardless, I'm not terribly interested in having a discussion about libel with another user. If you wish to effect change in Wikipedia's policies I would suggest that you continue your conversation with the Foundation, as they are in a position to do this, while I am not. If you wish to continue this dialogue with the user in question, I would suggest that you email them through the site. On the lower left sidebar of their userpage is a button that says "Email this user". If they have email set up you will be able to email them through the site. If not, you can drop a note on their talk page asking them to email you or to register an email address with Wikipedia.

Your comment was perceived as a legal threat because it was preceded by several paragraphs of accusations of libel. If you had not started your statement with a discussion of how this user was committing a legal wrong, and merely says something like "We have contact the Foundation about this and will be following up as necessary" I wouldn't have perceived it as a legal threat, although I cannot speak for any other editor. However, if you were not intending to silence this particular user, what effect did you think this comment would have? What alternative interpretation is reasonable after three or four paragraphs accusing someone of libeling you, followed by a vague statement about pursuing legal action? If this had been directed at you, how would you have understood it?

You also have not answered my question above, regarding your statement "I cannot commit to any requirement." What do you mean by that? Natalie (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]