Wikipedia talk:Threats of violence

Wikipedians and "real world" threats

The following allegation is highly insulting to any Wikipedian and is not backed up by any proof that it is true. I have therefore put the {{Fact}} ([citation needed]) template next to it [1], subsequently removed [2], but this is the problematic statement:

Should a threat be made on Wikipedia against a person, institution or building, it is unlikely the community of editors, including administrators, will be able to make an appropriate "real world" response.

Wikipedians live in the "real world" as much as, if not more than, others, since after all Wikipedians are writing and editing an encyclopedia that is describing and explaining what is going on the the real world, and then some. Any normal person facing a threat in the real world knows how to call for help and dial 911 or the FBI (anywhere in the USA) if there is real danger involved so that to absurdly claim that they wouldn't know how to make a "an appropriate 'real world' response" to serious threats is ludicrous and pathetic and an insult to human intelligence. The statement is an outright violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA against the entire Wikipedia community at large and should either be reworded or withdrawn as soon as possible. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So who do you call in China or India or some even more obscure countries? Also can your local 911 dispatcher in say New York deal with a threat in Texas or Alaska? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If I saw a ToV about somewhere in my local county (UK User here) I'd i)Call my local police and ii)Tell the office. If the ToV was in my country but far away I'd tell the office, and call my local police. If the ToV was abroad I'd tell the office, and maybe post on ANI. China or India (obscure?) countries count as "abroad". Dan Beale-Cocks 11:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hypnosadist: In Red China I would not know who to call because it is a Communist dictatorship that cruelly abuses its own citizens, and it not just hates but actively blocks Wikipedia, see Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China as part of Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China so the chances are that if you are a Wikipedian there you had better watch out because that in itself will bring the police to your front door. I suggest prayer in China. In India they have a good police system and they have phones and the Internet. I mean what are you really saying? In any modern country there are phones and numbers to reach the police in case of emergencies, this is something that people learn with their mother's milk and no one needs to be "advised" or "guided" by fake "policies" to contact the police if threatened, least of all smart Wikipedians. People should not be regarded as incapable and infantalized. Wikipedians are a sophisticated group of people dedicated to creating, writing and editing articles and are definitely NOT interested in functioning or being trained as a paramilitary arm or auxiliary police wing of anyone or anything. P.S. All 911 operators and the FBI are connected to all 50 USA states, and to Canada and further as well, with sophisticated communications systems. We are now in the 21st century. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So you know who to call in india and "red" China? A threatened school shooting in China is no different than one in LA dispite what we think of the governments of particular countries human rights record (especially what a lot of people think of americas human rights record at the moment). "prayer" is just not F***ing good enough, "People should not be regarded as incapable and infantalized." So who do you call in Ghana? Uzbekistan (worse human rights record than china but that does not stop the US tax payer giving 180 million dollars to help boil people in oil)? Norway? Can all wikipedians speak all languages on the planet? Of course not! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly now Hypnosadist I am not making anything up here about China being Communist, see the People's Republic of China article that clearly states that: "The Communist Party of China (CPC) has led the PRC under a single-party system since the state's establishment in 1949" and being a "Red" (with a capital "R") country merely denotes that that country is under Communist rule which is usually a dictatorship. And I am not sure how anyone asks for help in a dictatorship when it is the government that is the source of most threats of violence against its citizens within the country. I do not wish to debate that point further because it is as clear as daylight. So therefore I said: I suggest prayer in China. Anyhow, India UNLIKE China is a proven democracy with regular transfers of power from one political party to another and they have a fairly reliable justice system for the population to appeal to altho it is not on the level of Western nations it is still very good and they have phones to reach the police if they need to. Otherwise they just use runners to get to the local police outpost, but if they must rely on runners they probably don't have the Internet either in those spots and they have probably never heard of Wikipedia so that cuts out about 80% of India as they are still slowly catching up with technology for the masses. As for asking what to do in Ghana and these other esoteric places, many of them, especially in Africa are under military rule and involved in various conflicts and they have worse things to worry about than what goes on on their Internet connections, that is if they can even get one. As for Norway, if anyone acts funny there no doubt the Norwegian police can be contacted and in Europe almost all educated people try to learn how to speak English. We must stop globalizing and worrying about the planet and get on with writing and editing this encyclopedia that we all love. Thanks again and have a great weekend. IZAK (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of you are using unnecessary hyperbole, if I may say so. China certainly has the internet, crime, and civil police. The major difference might be lack of widespread access to firearms, but that doesn't preclude other forms of violence. Whatever communication problems might exist are surmountable given the incentive of protecting life and limb. In Hong Kong, for example, I would expect to be able to find a police contact with both English and internet proficiency to find someone in, say, Shenzhen or Harbin that can deal with the problem. It's something like a variation of the six degrees problem (however mythical that assumption). The politics of the country are probably not a large factor here. --Dhartung | Talk 20:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So Izak your cunning plan is summed up in "Hope they speak english"? Even if you don't think there should be a notice board, you should see the advantage of having a list of the correct phone numbers to contact. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Again with the Jimbo box

Why do you all insist on keeping that thing up there? Anyone? ➪HiDrNick! 05:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus. Bstone (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! ➪HiDrNick! 05:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I want it too. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be there. NonvocalScream (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Then provide an argument to support it, just saying "I do not like that argument" or "I think it should stay" does not help to form consensus or move the discussion in the right direction. Tiptoety ^talk 16:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT is getting old, especially when you have been one to revert war on the page was well.. — Κaiba 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:JIMBOSEZ echos my belief. And stop your peeing about in the water. Someone participation is reverting does not lessen an arguement. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

JIMBOSEZ could be applied here and make the argument look weaker, but that doesn't warrent the box being removed, JIMBOSEZ isn't a policy saying "Thou must not quote Jimbo", its a simply a essay. And, BTW, I don't need to poison your well, you're doing a pretty fine job discrediting you yourself. — Κaiba 17:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I understand, I'm not making a policy based arguement here. It is an essay. However, is mirrors my beliefs about the box, the box of Jimbo Says does not strengthen or add anything to this essay. And, you are still poisening the well, try to be collegiate and sound in your arguements and address the edits (arguements) not the editor. Lets be civil. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That is my point, you're not basing the removal of the box on policy or even a guideline, most essays doesn't constitute a removal of anything, just a thing to keep in the back of your mind while editing. I think the co-owner of Wikipedia stating "it is very important that we respond appropriately to threats" and "I encourage people to err on the side of caution and report things to AN/I quickly", specifically referring to these kinds of incidents does add to the essay. — Κaiba 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

<--- (undent)How about we come to a compromise. We remove the quote from the box, and simply place in in a reference like all the other information? Tiptoety ^talk 18:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am amenable to that. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. :) Bstone (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

edit protected

{{editprotected}} Kindly requesting that the Jimbo Box be removed and the contents be integrated into reference 1. Bstone (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit of clarification is probably needed - where do you want the contents integrated exactly? (Reference [1] is itself contained inside the box.) krimpet✽ 06:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The box with the "credentials of people in law enforcement and emergency services" part does not appear to actually have any consensus on this talk page that I have been able to see. Credentialism goes against Wikipedia's ethos, as found all over the project. It's self serving and doesn't reflect that there are people with credentials in law enforcement and emergency services who disagree with the idea. The line regarding credentials should be removed (the rest of the box is fine) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed and decided to be kept. It's not that big of a deal, really. Bstone (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere on this page where it was decided to be kept. I see no consensus to keep, in fact, if anything a consensus to remove it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've looked it over and I indeed think SWATjester has correctly determined consensus is against the clause, so I have removed it. krimpet✽ 06:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The jimbobox has consensus to be removed and added as a reference instead. The custom essay box was discussed and consensed to be kept. However since consensus isn't being followed I am not going to bother with this any longer. A mountain was made out of a molehill. Bstone (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, why dont we remove the Jimbo quote from the box and simply add it as a reference (number 2) like all the others. Tiptoety ^talk 15:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of doing this. Noting Jimbo's opinion is fine, emphasizing it as if it trumped all other considerations is not. For the record, I support krimpet's removal of the credentialist text as well. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bstone and Tiptoety, if I make the protected edit to remove the jimbo quote as a reference, will that be OK, or will that piss people off as an abuse of the tools? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You never know who in the future might come back and claim you are abusing your admin tools. Maybe we'll just ask another admin? Bstone (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Swat: I say fu*k 'em. If there is a clear consensus then why should you not? I wont simply because I am way too involved, but you look to be just as much a third party as any admin is at this point. If you want to err on the side of caution, then don't, but I say just do it. Tiptoety ^talk 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Anyone (well, any admin) can feel free to revert it f they deem it controversial, but it appears everyone is in favor of this.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Given the use or not of the Jimbobox was the reason for the edit war, and a compromise (use Jimbo's quote as a reference) has been arrived at, the reason for protecting this page now seems to be moot. I've unprotected the essay. Neıl ☎ 10:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I feel that is the appropriate course of action at this time. Lets hope this is the last time the page will have to be protected. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is still good advice, and still a good idea!

and as such I think it's worth revisiting... perhaps consensus isn't an impossible goal!

as part of the improvement of this article, I've removed the following sections, because I feel they're a bit too 'beans'ie - ie. they may 'feed the trolls' in some ways. I'm a big fan of focus, and keeping things short and sweet - as such, I hope to build support for this proposal, and hope it can become a policy in due course! Privatemusings (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

removed bits follow;

Incidents

• An example of a shooting threat: it was reported to AIV, and was reported to the police. A threat that mentioned names was oversighted, and another was deleted.

See also Wikipedia Signpost: School Threat (2008-04-21)

• Threat of homicide to a high school, which was reported to police.

• Fallout from an unreported threat of violence against a school

• A terrorist threat which was reported to Department of Homeland Security.

• Threats close 3 colleges, 4 more schools
• Violent threats on Wilson High's Wikipedia page went unchecked

thanks all, Privatemusings (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A Suggestion

I'd like to suggest that having removed a couple of sections, and allowed a bit of water to flow under the bridge, that we re submit this as a proposal to become a policy - I think the advice here is sound, and that it's an appropriate subject to be covered by policy. Thoughts most welcome, cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing some of the beans material. Do you think that the dispute has gone away? I was under the impression that this was a failed attempt to establish a new policy, but perhaps I was wrong… --Hans Adler (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The current version (as of your recent editing) is much better than some previous versions, so thanks for doing that. We'll see if it lasts. As far as the policy issue goes, I (and others) aren't going to support a policy that says you must treat any edit with a threat as credible, and I especially am not going to support any policy claiming that editors have a positive moral duty to panic when confronted with threats. You may scoff, but some previous versions amounted to proposing such a requirement. If the policy is just "it's a good idea to report credible threats, but don't lose your head", then I'd support it. Unfortuantely, I am betting that the present version won't last. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame, Gavia, that you believe this essay advocated for people to panic. The point of the original proposal was to codify a method that editors could follow just so there would be no panicing. Without a guideline or policy, however, the chances of actual panic are quite high as there is no mechanism to follow when a credible threat is found. Now it will just be chaotic with people choosing to disregard WP:TOV as it is only an essay. You also stated you will ignore all threats. I wonder why you say that when the police and public safety officials are begging us to do the exact opposite? Bstone (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The police and public safety officials are not always right. In fact, they are often wrong. I remember reading about a study into the reasons why children often have very dangerous cycling accidents. The result was: rather than exercise their own judgement the often follow the advice they are getting from their parents and the police. Literally. This causes dangerous situations, for example when they keep sticking out their arm while turning off, even when the situation gets dangerous. The TOV situation is somewhat similar, and I am getting the impression that you are dealing with the WP:BEANS / copycat crime problem by completely ignoring it and pretending that it does not exist. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the police and public safety officials are 100% correct. Ignoring "it" and hoping "it" will go away does not work when a psycho posts a manifesto on Wikipedia stating he will go into a school and shoot children. Since psychos do go into schools and murder people, it is incumbent upon us to take threats of such actions seriously. If it was a stupid kid making an empty threat/prank then there is nothing lost in alerting the police. If it's a true psycho we may have just saved lives. We must err on the side of caution else the blood may just be on our hands. Bstone (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

New nutshell / looking for common ground

I rather like Gavia's comment above, and so have replaced the nutshell with the line she or he suggested. I too don't think we either should or could mandate that everything that could possibly be construed as a threat must be reported to the police, and I'd really like us to find the common ground, and try and get this page to a policy level, because I see it as important and useful. With that in mind, I'm tempted to avoid too much discussion of minutiae like the length of some of the ref.s and try and chat in slightly more general terms. The situations that this proposed policy is intended to help in have happened more than a few times - I would like it to be a way of minimising 'drama' and quickly offering sound advice to good faith editors, who typically post something at AN/I (for example) asking for guidance. Does this page, as drafted, work at all in that regard? Do we have broad agreement that the advice here is sound? I think we can get there, and I think it's worth it! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How to best manage an archive process?

I think this page is getting rather long, and is becoming cumbersome. I don't wish to make the call as to where the balance lies between accountability / sweeping stuff under a rug, and practical usage considerations, but would support an archive of posts older than, say, a month? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It does need archiving. In practice, there hasn't been much activity on the talk page between early May and late June, so I'd suggest early May as a cutoff (about a month and a half). — Gavia immer (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done: Archives 1 and 2 linked in {{archive box}} above. — Athaenara ✉ 22:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Guideline

Is there any way we can compromise and make this a guideline? What I have in mind is simply a strong recommendation that people report it to WP:AN/I, where others can decide whether to report to authorities. It seems too important to say "Well, maybe this is a good idea." Superm401 - Talk 07:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should for the above/archive reasons. NonvocalScream (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be very much in favor of such a guideline. Last night's TOV was so disturbing and I was profoundly upset that it was marked "resolved" before it was reported to authorities. Bstone (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... taking a look through the last few times any threats of violence were noticed anywhere on the wiki, it seems that the consistent first step taken is to note it at AN/I - further; every time threat was felt to be credible, it was reported (appropriately in my book) to the relevant authorities... I think this page describes that behaviour rather well. I'd say the actions of a wide variety of editors in a number of contexts are described pretty clearly herein, and what's that term we use for a document which describes what consensus repeatedly determines as the sensible course of action...... Privatemusings (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We have done this already, the project ought not take an official stance which guideline or policy would imply in this context. There are possible legal ramifications that may give the foundation or its editors undue exposure. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There are very good reasons that this essay should never proceed beyond essay status. The fact that people have repeatedly been trying to promote this to a guideline without any real consensus for months now, across multiple versions, is pretty telling that it's not at all a "wide consensus of editors" but rather the opinions of only a few, on a topic disputed by many. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening Discussion for Guideline Status

(copied from WT:TOV/NeuroRev) With the help of bstone,L'Aquatique, and me, of course...We've revised the old WP:TOV to help improve it, please give your opinions! I'm hoping for it to become a Guideline, I realize I'm rather new for such a bold move, I however feel I've done an alright job in making my first "Major Edit" of an article, and with the help of L'Aquatique's copyediting, I believe it's a good candidate for WP:Policy. I understand one of the main problems with the old revision, was the problems with contacting emergency officials on false threats, however in this day and age I think we can all safely assume, nothing is impossible, and you just never know. I feel it's important to point out that if a threat isn't reported, it presents a significant gamble on the part of the person who chooses to not report, with the safety of not only Us, but the Wikimedia Foundation as well...Think of poor Jimbo! Thanks for hearing me out!

Cheers,
Neuro√Logic 01:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• SupportMy name is L'Aquatique, and I approve this message! L'Aquatique[talk] 03:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support My name is Bstone and I strongly support this message! Bstone (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Obviously in this day in age, we need a strong policy on Wikipedia about Threats of Violence. 84.69.24.19 (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• With all due respect, this does not make a consensus to flag this as a guideline. If there was a discussion elsewhere, then I apologize (link please) but for now, I've tagged it as an essay. I see this has been announced at a few places, but I think it should be given at least a week or so for further comment before tagging it as a guideline. –xeno (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Very good move. It takes far more review than this to promote to policy or guideline. Three editors do not a consensus make. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Getting involved in the real world is outside the scope of what we do at Wikipedia. Our policies and guidelines generally focus on things that editors should do at Wikipedia. "No legal threats" is about as far as we go in dealing with real-world behavior, but that policy is all about how we respond on Wikipedia to the threats, not how we respond in real life. I don't see how this is the kind of thing that should ever have any kind of official status. Friday (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Added in your status as oppose in bold, for ease of reading, because I didn't realize it was an opposition the first couple times I read it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support The past practive has been to take threats of violence seriously and report them to the appropriate authorities. We do not need another mass killing to occur because we thought some psycho was just looking for attention. Edison (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Friday, these are the sort of situations that need to be handled case by case, and there can not be a blanket policy for then, this would just be instruction creep. Prodego ^talk 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I did the same with your comment that I did with Friday's, marking it as being an oppose for ease of quick reading. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• I like the idea but I oppose this guideline - too rigid and inflexible given the sorts of very different challenges we are faced with in this arena, and in certain cases could provoke drama which risks damaging Wikipedia's reputation in various foreseeable kinds of future incidents. Orderinchaos 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per xeno, et al. This should never be more than an essay. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose It is way too rigid, inflexible, presumes to speak for people that it should not be speaking for, and expands the responsibilities of our editors beyond where they should be expected to go. We have no right to EVER require via guideline or policy our editors to contact the authorities off wiki, under any circumstances. That must entirely be a voluntary activity. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Some threats are just too trivial to report. If I phoned up the police every time there was a threat, they would have grown sick of me. If the threat is very specific, then reporting is likely to be appropriate. Just making this a swooping guideline that all threats should be reported seems silly - it's not quite the same as being threatened in the street. Ian¹³/t 18:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• I notice that there has been no discussion with the OTRS volunteers and administrators about using OTRS as a primary contact point for the purpose of informing the Foundation and those of us who do deal with external relations that a threat of violence has been left on the project. There are potential complications with such a system of informing the relevant persons about a threat, not least because OTRS by default lists new messages as the rear of a queue and a message may not be read in a timely fashion, and given that OTRS is a meta project, featuring editors from all of our projects, there is a chance an administrator would not be able to deal with any threat - whether it be page protection, blocking of account, deletion of page, or whatever else is necessary. Nick (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OTRS is not designed for this, and would not be good at handling it at default. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as stated by others, each threat should be handled on a case by case basis. While this is a good page to say what to do, I don't think any ol' threat should be reported. It should state that specific threats against specific targets should be reported and should be dealt with. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. It is too rigid and inflexible; placing editors in danger from government is something those editors should be deciding, not something that we should be forcing upon editors. Suggesting a course of action and providing some contact information is all fine and good, but that is where we should stop. Remember that not everyone has the freedoms you can get in Switzerland, and putting your name into a database used by the police can be a very, very bad thing to do in this day and age. We should respect the privacy of our editors and not force them into courses of actions by making what is most appropriately an essay into binding guidelines or policy. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Friday, Prodego, etc. Threats should be dealt with on a case by case basis. If we make something like this into a policy or guideline, the trolls are going to have a field day, while we waste our own time and taxpayer dollars reporting every "Osama will attack at noon" threat to the FBI. Mr.Z-man 19:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• So would you support if the wording was changed a bit, more to reflect that only credible threats be reported? Tiptoety ^talk 20:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, along with some other minor changes, but we'll never be able to agree on a definition of credible to put in the guideline. That's why handling things case-by-case works better, without having people say "But the guideline says this!". Mr.Z-man 19:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - While I support the concept, I do not think that every threat needs to be reported and for sure there is no need to ever bring it to AN/I. I guess I would just hope that people would do the right thing without the need for a policy or guideline guiding them to do so, and it sadness me to think that there is such great debate about doing something morally correct. Oh, well, in a perfect world I guess... and as the great Albert Schweitzer once said: "Ethics, too, are nothing but reverence for life. This is what gives me the fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil." Tiptoety ^talk 20:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Friday, Swatjester, Zscout, etc. It's better as an essay. Making it a guideline isn't going to make people any more likely to take charitable, common-sense actions, and it's instruction creep, as well as expanding the mandate of the WMF. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Real world actions equals real world consequence. We ought not encourage our editors to do anything off wiki, otherwise we take responsibility for the consequence, whatever it may be. This has to be completely on the editor if they want to act. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is a POV splinter essay anyways, formed out of a previous attempt at a consensus policy (see Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm for another essay on the subject which has been around for longer and is more widely supported). I think that its existence is continuing to confuse people, which is not good. There should ideally be only one essay on the subject. If we ever get to the point that a real policy consensus forms, then great, but ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, I had no idea that essay even existed when I was working on WP:TOV, calling it a point of view splinter seems rather harsh, I had no other point of view to oppose. Neuro√Logic 16:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Accidental fork, perhaps? ---J.S (T/C/WRE)

No, Bstone knew about that page well before he created this one, and I and others recommended he not try this experiment given how badly the community reacted to the prior two policy / guideline consensus attempts. It was an intentional fork / restart. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I Oppose making this particular page policy or elevating it to the status of a guideline, as this is redundant. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

Perhaps we can reach a compromise since it seems there is an overwhelming oppose on this, the issue here I've noticed is it's mention of "off-wiki action" as it would be inappropriate to suggest what people do outside the scope of Wikipedia. I agree there, and can see that point fully. I pose this question: Could a positive consensus be reached if it were to limit the suggested action taken to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's related areas of report?

As a sincerely concerned person, I understand this is...questionable, to ask or assume people would and be willing to, follow Wikipedia guidelines, beyond Wikipedia's scope. As such, I would hope that perhaps removing the bits about real-world action, would result in consensus. I would like to see a stance at Wikipedia toward this action, as these threats go ignored, and they result in real world consequences...View the first source on WP:TOV, it speaks of how law enforcement officials had wished the administrators could have informed them, or that there was a policy for it. Perhaps it can be left up to the admins to decide what to do with the matter, but I'd like to see some form of this actually exist as a guideline. Neuro√Logic 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that existing processes really aren't equipped to handle things like this. Reports to ANI generally involve many people running around screaming (figuratively, I hope...) with only a couple people actually doing something (calling authorities, notifying a checkuser, etc.). Discussions on the public IRC channels tend to end up pretty similar. Lots of panicking, not much thinking; I believe someone almost called the FBI over a 4th grade field trip at one point. As has been said in the above section, contacting OTRS isn't really a good alternative either. As far as I know, no one has made any attempt to discuss this with the en.wp OTRS volunteers or the OTRS admins. Most of the OTRS volunteers who would be able to help would be the same people who would respond to a post on AN, but if the email gets sent to the wrong queue, it might be several hours, or even days, before someone reads it. If the idea is to contact the foundation, you're better off contacting Cary and/or Mike directly. As for that first source, I don't have access to the whole article, but remember that administrators are not gods, and they are volunteers. If someone didn't see the threats, its probably because the only people who did were the person who made them, and the person who saw what looked like (and was) vandalism and reverted it. Mr.Z-man 19:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There's one reason why I would never support this as a guideline. A guideline suggests that if you go against what it says, you are in the wrong. Now, many, many people believe the best way to deal with things is to revert, block and ignore. I wouldn't generally report a threat of violence, and I would therefore be going against an official guideline. This comes down to how seriously an editor takes something. If you feel the need to report something, then do so, but we shouldn't be compelled to take actions in real life because of something that happened on wiki. I don't even like the reports to AN/I - if reports at all, they should be done discreetly and not with the inevitable drama that AN/I provokes. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I still have no clue how you could possibly ignore a threat placed on a school's article which identifies current students by name as targets for murder. Gosh, with the horrors of Columbine, NIU, V. Tech, etc etc it's kinda horrifying that you could actually suggest WP:RBI as any course of action. Especially in light of the pleas from law enforcement and public safety officers begging us to report these sorts of threats. Bstone (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Ryan is talking about. He's talking about someone redirecting some admins page to "I"M GUNNA KILL YOU XENOCIDIC" just because they blocked them a few days earlier. Those can safely be RBI'd. Common sense should come into play for a more specific and real threat like the one you mentioned. –xeno (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There's one key thing here - WP:COMMONSENSE. If you see a specific threat, and you feel obliged to report it, then do so. If you don't, you don't have to report anything on Wikipedia to the authorities. If someone doesn't report something, they shouldn't be held account on wiki because of some guideline. The normal thing to do with non-specific threats is RBI - that's almost always the only thing required. If someone does see a specific threat on wiki, then by all means report it - no-ones going to shoot you down for it, but we don't need a guideline to force people to, and they should report it themselves, rather than creating drama at AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If that is what Ryan meant then I agree with him. However saying "I would never report a threat of violence" doesn't leave much room for interpretation. It seems Ryan would actually RBI such threats as I have described, which have now occurred exactly twice. I am very curious to know if Ryan would ignore the threat as I have described. Bstone (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Z-Man and Ryan. I just don't think this should be a guideline. Not only to do with off-wiki responses, but also because of the codifying of on-wiki responses to off-wiki events. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 20:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlike you, I vehemently wouldn't like to see it as a guideline. Personally, I don't even really like it being there as an essay, but I understand it as a necessary evil to be there in this day and age. I can't say with words how much I don't want to see any kind of suggestions, regardless of severity, that have the teeth to b e able to block or a sanction an editor who chooses not to take a specific off-wiki action. The idea that there are people who would want to make it enforcable policy to make contact with an unquetionably dangerous off-wiki entity to report on the actions of another off-wiki entity on-wiki deeply, deeply disturbs me. The information should be there, sure; that is, of course, a choice that editors should make for themselves, and they should be as informed in doing so as possible in terms of who to contact, what to say, and how to maintain as much anonymity as possible in the process, but that can all be done in an essay. There is no benefit that I can see in having a guideline or a policy that serves the same function, only makes it possible to sanction users who make the decision not to make that call. While I understand the intent of people like the parent, I think they're a little short-sighted; in the right hands of an abusive administrative oligarchy, this could be an incredibly, incredibly bad policy. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This guideline proposal sets zero "punishment" for those who choose not become involved. It would be a guideline, not a policy. Plus there is no way to know if someone would be ignoring it so it's a bit of a mute point. Bstone (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no point in having an unenforceable guideline or unenforceable policy; we already have that. They're called essays. The only effects of elevating it to have it as a policy or guideline is to give a sense that those who choose not to get involved in are "probably wrong", or "going against policy". Having guidelines makes not following them inherently less acceptable than following them; if you don't want to create that stigma, then why on earth would you make it a guideline? Why not leave it as it is? It still provides the information needed to the editors (although I think it could use a few bits about how to protect your identity in the process of making a report). Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If this entire essay were rewritten stating something along the lines of "do not RBI specific threats of murder, such as against school children" then I could call it a success. It's very concerning that people would revert, ignore and even ask for deletion/oversight of such threats before reporting them to the appropriate authorities (as we have been advised, by authorities, to do). Bstone (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Voluntary requests the authorities do not bind editors to policy, nor will or should they ever. It may concern you, but that is because you have a hardline point of view that all of these situations should be reported without fail. Others significantly disagree with you. Whether it concerns you or not, you need to understand that what you view as a "success" others view as a significant overstepping of our boundaries. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

SWAT, you write you have a hardline point of view that all of these situations should be reported without fail. However you were replying to my comment in which I said that we should ignore the obvious vandalism and instead focus on threats which identify children and schools by name. Did you even read what I wrote? If you had then there is no possibly way nor interpretation that can backup your thoughts on my views. I do not believe that all threats should be reported without fail- only ones which are clearly scary and specific. Would love to hear how you interpret that to mean all threats, no matter how minor or vandalism in nature, should be reported...according me? Bstone (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd take it a step further than oversight, actually; I'd try to get a dev to scrub the database and write over the sector addresses a few times so there was absolutely no trace of it left; less info for the FBI or whatever that way. :P But my personal feelings of not assuming the government is my friend aside, if you don't think the essay is strongly worded enough, why don't you change it? I'm sure a list of the pros and cons of the RBI cycle with regards to threats of violence would be a great addition to this small essay. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

hmmm......

Just popping by to review - and read through the above commentary... y'know I still think I prefer this version of the proposal, and would be interested if anyone passing by disagrees with anything in it (I'm less interested at the moment in ideas and opinions about what 'status' the page should have.....)

It's also interested to try and write down (for the sake of good communications, and also as an interesting excercise) how you think people actually are reacting to such threats at the moment on this wiki.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Realistically, I think people are reacting to them the same way that they would react to them regardless of the status of this essay; that is, they are reacting on it based on their personal feelings on the matter and whether or not they think something is credible. Witnessing a threat to another living person and dealing with the fact that actual harm could result depending on your actions after seeing it can be a very distressing thing; at the same time, getting involved with government entities can be a very dangerous thing. Those who feel safe and secure enough with contacting the authorities probably report them when they see them on AN/I or as they show up; people less secure with that idea, or people who aren't sure about the credibility of the threat, probably post it on AN/I and let someone look at it and/or report it. On the far end of the spectrum, you have people like me who weigh their personal safety and security above an extremely low-probability threat, and will point it out perhaps on IRC if it is very credible or on a low-traffic, low-profile page, or not risk that and not report it at all. You're going to have a hard time convincing people to change their ways about off-wiki behavior, especially when it comes to dangerous beings like law enforcement and people threatening school shootings (which make the former all the more dangerous, especially when they can't find a scapegoat); that's one of the reasons I don't think this would be useful as anything other than an essay. Those who don't want to follow it wouldn't, and those who would, already do anyway. Elevating it isn't going to change things one way or the other, it is only going to make a more dangerous editing environment where people could (in principle, anyway; technically, it would be very difficult to achieve and would require developer intervention and sifting through lots of TCP and SQUID logs) be sanctioned for witnessing a threat and choosing not to get involved.

But that's beside the point; you don't want prose on the status of the page, you wanted an opinion on this diff, apparently. Really, there's not that much difference between them, and what little there is really just strength of wording.

The first difference is relatively inconsequential; a threat against a person, institution or building is pretty much the only kind of threat that matters. But, on the other hand, I don't see why it should be specified. If you're looking for all threats of violence to be reported, you might as well keep it in the latter version. The second difference is that the latter version specifies "genuine intent"; while you may see the value of having every "Ima kill u, u reverted my edit lolol" and "Osama will attack at noon" posted to AN/I, I don't; only credible threats that could conceivably come around should get that kind of attention, IMO. The newer version also lacks the second "report stuff to authorities" paragraph, which doesn't really add anything substantive; the lead already says that they should be reported to authorities, so I don't see what adding it again does for anything. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

Please do not add advice to contact otrs again to this essay, proposal, or whatever. OTRS was not designed for this. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I kinda agree. I was never a fan of OTRS handling this. They rejected my app to be part of OTRS when I said I could help with TOVs. Bstone (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In order for any statement to be made that it is needed to contact OTRS for TOV's, OTRS needs to be asked first, and to my knowledge they have already stated they do not and will not handle TOV's. Tiptoety ^talk 03:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nutshell wording

In order to avoid an edit war on the nutshell, let us start a discussion here regarding its wording. I believe it should be along the lines of "It's a good idea to report credible threats." That's perfect for a nutshell. A nutshell, by definition, doesn't have caveats, exceptions, extra instructions, etc etc. It's just a simple one liner. Now there is an attempt to add "don't take it to extremes" or similar to the nutshell. I am curious what "extremes" means? Can this possibly be defined or explained? Thank you. Bstone (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice this earlier. The nutshell is there to summarize what the page says in a few quick sentences. The last time I looked at it, I thought that there was more about being skeptical and not reporting every "I'm going to beat Cho's high score" and "Osama will attack at noon", but in the current version, it really only says "Accordingly, if there is any possibility at all that a "real world" threat has been made with genuine intent . . . "

But that's just one interpertation of it. Above all else, it's always important to minimize drama. AN/ANI are good places to discuss threats of violence. The village pump is not. The terrorism talk page is not. Canvassing everyone with the "This user is a Columbia student" when there's a threat of violence relevant to Columbia is not a good idea. These are extremes. The end of the essay states "Evaluate a threat seriously, and to minimize distraction and disruption on Wikipedia, consider: Report. Revert. Ignore." I think, at least in spirit if not in words, that means that we shouldn't go crazy on it and report it on every noticeboard and talkpage we can think of.

If you really think that it should be gone, I don't have that much of an issue with its removal; I just think that it would wise to counsel caution and try to minimize drama if at all possible; it isn't trying to dissuade people from making a report, merely trying to keep the drama to a minimum. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I hear and understand what you said. I just think the nutshell should include a minimal instruction that it's a good idea to report credible threats. As "Osama will attack at noon, zomg!" is clearly not. But a threat on a high school article listing names of current students as targets for murder (this has happened at least twice) seems very credible. I am just not sure what "extremes" means. Does it include calling the police? The army? Forming your own vigilante squad? Calling the police when there is a school threats seems to be the most decent, basic thing to do. That's certainly not extreme at all. Bstone (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone feels ready with the idea of getting involved, they should limit their actions to reporting it to ANI if they feel safe enough doing that and don't mind the record of their report being accessible to law enforcement, or if they're feeling especially adventerous and don't mind getting recorded/traced/permanently attached to the case as the reporter, calling the relevant jurisdiction and department themselves. That's it. We don't need anything else. We don't need extreme measures; we don't need cross-namespace and cross-article posts all over the place, we don't need twelve different threads at ANI on the same thing, we don't need direct canvassing of users. Like the essay says, one should consider dealing with it; quietly reporting it, getting the offending parties blocked, and letting it go away. Nothing more. No extremes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now you've defined 'extremes'. Before it was unclear, but now it seems you limit its definition to on-wiki extremes. I am fine with that and it makes perfect sense. It someone threatens to murder current students in a high school on the HS's article then a single ANI thread alerting of this threat, indicating CU has been alerted and it's been appropriately reported to the police is all that is needed. Then it can be closed and archived. However, that wasn't clear from the nutshell but it is clear from the essay. Bstone (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually support Bstone's version of the nutshell. "It's a good idea to report credible threats" is simple, to the point, and invites additional reading of the policy. Disagree with the policy though I may, but Bstone's version of the nutshell is the most accurate and relevant. Even if it slightly longer, it's still ok, for instance "One should consider reporting credible threats." It lacks the contentiousness of determining the appropriate place to report that, someting that we can't adequately fit into the nutshell anyway. Where and how to report something should be for the main essay. But when you sum it up, this page is about advocating that credible threats should be reported. Everything else is secondary to that. Therefore, that should be the majority of the nutshell, that primary purpose of the page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't really have a problem with it were it not for the fact that it doesn't set any upper limit on what you should do. Perhaps "One should consider quietly reporting credible threats at AN/I." Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "quietly" and "ANI" go together. Mr.Z-man 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm

I would suggest this be redirected to Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. LA (T) @ 18:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The two compliment each other. WP:VIOLENCE is the how-to, WP:TOV is the why. Bstone (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect if anything, IMHO, but I leave it to consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think redirecting is the way to go; this doesn't really add anything more than what's already there. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

< I'd say mark this page as policy! (if it's policy's job to describe what folk do, then this certainly fits!) - I don't really have a problem with having an essay / discussion page, and a concise, to-the-point policy page. Privatemusings (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)ps. I think there's progress being made on the nutshell stuff above - this is great! :-)

• I'd say that I want you to read the above and archived remarks regarding legal exposure and what a local project should and should not recommend as far as off wiki action goes, please. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have even offered to explain to you the civil ramifications offline. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, the legal exposure of willfully ignoring edits on the articles of high schools which identify current students for murder. Deleting and then oversighting those edits. Surely no lawyer would ever slap WMF with a multi-million dollar civil suit and highlight how "Wikipedia just ignored it" and referenced these talk pages to highlight the comments of administrators who said they would never report threats and always delete the revisions. Yes, is that the legal exposure you're talking about? Let's talk about it some more, shall we? Bstone (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For someone from the public safety field, you seem awfully ignorant of the relevant tort and case law. For a indifference suit like the one you mention, you have to prove criminal indifference to civil obligations. Unless you can find a statement to the effect that on-sight cross-jurisdictional reporting is a mandatory civil obligation whenever a threat of violence is witnessed somewhere in here or in here, you'd get laughed out of the coutroom and ordered to pay the defendants fees, then probably get countersued under one of four methods in Florida or six in California.

Conversely, stamping anything that can be taken to the legal effect that we become a reporter of all threats of violence that happen here opens the project up to MASSIVE litigation in the event that something happens and we miss it or something happens and no one reports it. Personally, I'd rather keep the project safe and let people make up their own minds rather than essentially self-stamping ourselves as mandatory reporters and suffering the legal consequences. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's good to know that WMF has a lawyer in their corner who will pull out every stop to defend against these sorts of civil suits. Yes, I am a public servant. Calling 911 to report a burglary in progress or a car accident with injuries will not open you to legal liability, but not calling and making it difficult for others to report surely shall. Bstone (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So you are making promises for WMF legal? Why are you obligating him? Who are you to say such a thing? Who are you to expose the project by creating a duty to report where none exists? NonvocalScream (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently, if we don't report, there is no exposure. But if you make a policy, and we miss one, we have exposure. I'm sure this is well intentioned, but it is not safe. I encourage you to please reconsider. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And if you delete revisions with credible threats before they have been reported- and the worst happens- you can bet a lawyer would be very interested in that. Bstone (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for totally ignoring my argument. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the use of bold :) Bstone (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a very naive worldview to take, Bstone. The world isn't as simple as you'd like it to be. In the confines of an isolated incident, no, what happens one way or the other doesn't matter. We can call, we can not call, there are no civil obligations that place liability on you for not having reported the matter. I don't quite know where you've gotten this idea that you have an obligation to do so under any of the relevant civil statues, but its just plain wrong; it doesn't work that way.

However, the moment we put something up that says "It is our policy to report threats of violence", we have made ourselves liable for any and every threat of violence that occurs on en-wiki; missing one opens us up to the strong possibility of lawsuits; civil liability in some jurisdictions, in other jurisdictions, the Foundation could actually be prosecuted by the state on criminal liability charges. The WMF could very easily lose huge chunks of its funding, and possibly lose its corporate charter altogether.

Your pretend little world of "Oh, if we do this, then it'll be better for everyone, and we won't have to worry about anything! Protect the high school students!" simply can't exist. We don't have the resources to guarantee reporting on all threats of violence; here in the United States especially, that is a huge target. If this were implemented as policy, I'd probably quit school, take the bar exam and start sifting through HTML dumps looking and police reports for a TOV that got by without getting reported; probably make quite a bit of cash, not to mention the headlines that would ensue. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Celarnor, but until you agree to abide by WP:CIVIL, cease name-calling and unnecessary hyperbole then I won't be able to discuss this. Have a nice day, won't you? :) Bstone (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any civility violations. Why do you continue to push this, yet refuse to address the arguments? When you stuff your fingers in your ears and yell "LAAAA LAAAA, I'M NOT DISCUSSING THIS!" your editing becomes tendentious and disruptive. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmmhmm. Ok, detaching from this until it all calms down. Later. Bstone (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Come back when you are ready to discuss this. I'll do the redirect again in the meantime. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, as a public servant, you may be a mandatory reporter; however, that function does not extend past your job, unless you're under some special contract with the municipality or the state that makes it so; if that were the case, then yes, you would be required under your contract with the city/state to report any threats of violence that you see in your day-to-day life. However, if that case, that is something that you chose to do by signing that contract. There is no obligation to do so on your part outside of the confines of your contract. The rest of the not-mandatory-reporting United States, not being you, thankfully enjoys the choice of whether or not to report crimes, be they human beings or incorporated companies like the Foundation. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you took that as offensive, but there's no hyperbole there, just tort law that gets used every day in pretty much any jursidiction in the US. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

oh I'm aware of the arguments in that direction - I think we just disagree on the conclusion... I believe, on balance, that the project should have this page as policy. (it's no worries that we disagree though - and I'm certainly neither empowered nor inclined to change the page status or anything!) :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)this was after ec - your offer to discuss further was, and is, sincerely appreciated :-)

"WMF has a lawyer in their corner who will pull out every stop" - Really? Who? From what I've observed, the WMF will put up a fight until they get a subpoena, then they'll release the IP data and let the ISP (which generally has more legal protection, and more money) do the fighting. Mr.Z-man 17:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That isn't what would happen. They wouldn't be wanting anything from the ISP; they'd be wanting money or damages from the WMF or just the satisfaction of seeing their opponent driven into bankruptcy. The WMF as a corporation would be the defendant in a reporting-related liability case, not any individual editors. The only defense, really, other than "Wow, that was a really stupid move to let that become policy, we'll OFFICE that away right now, please don't bankrupt us", would be to convince that a policy isn't a binding contract; this would be easier if it were a guideline, as guidelines are ignored from time to time, but as a policy (which has sanctions for not abiding by it), most judges would agree that policy constitutes an implied in fact contract. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought he was referring to a civil case against the admin who deleted a threat without reporting it. Obviously the WMF lawyer would defend the foundation itself. Mr.Z-man 19:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have mailed Mike Godwin a note about this - I believe that we should stop putting foundation policy or legal implications in his mouth. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the only editor who put something in the foundation counsels mouth was Bstone, however agrees. I like wise have notified him earlier also. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the redirect on the grounds that WP:SUICIDE addresses different issues, and is also something of an omnibus, and because I don't see the problem in keeping this essay. I could be convinced, though, if someone were to put forward an argument. The redirect is the subject of this section, right? Avruch ^T 21:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a policy who's time has come?

If you've had the chance to read the policy, and would like to make a comment (in support, opposition, or indifference!) - please do so below! - my reading of a couple of recent AN threads is that this is now not only well established practice, but a policy who's time has come? :-) Personally - I support this as policy. Privatemusings (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, just as before. HiDrNick! 03:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, as always. We don't do "consensus through exhaustion" around here. --Carnildo (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• So we're just going to vote on this once a month then? Oppose as before. Mr.Z-man 05:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

heh! :-) well maybe not then..... thing is chaps, despite opposition, it does sort of describe what everyone has been doing for the last many months, no? - perhaps we need to figure out a different tag for something which describes the behaviour of wiki folk accurately? maybe something like 'This page describes what people have done many times in such situations' as oppose to 'policy'? :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We have that, and it's already here. It's called an essay, and it reflects the opinion of some people. It doesn't bind anyone to a course of action, even to a small degree. This is good, as it is exactly what we need for this page.

We've been through the civil issues of having something that describes "what you're supposed to do in situation x" that involves violence or the threat thereof, right? Changing the name from 'policy' to something slightly less 'mandatory' might buy you a few points in the win chance, but ultimately, I think it would come down to whether or not it reflects a "do this" mentality, especially when considered in an environment like a wiki. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would guess that for every farcical "threat" reported to one of the noticeboards and panicked over, there are dozens that are simply reverted, possibility blocked, and then ignored, as is sensible. HiDrNick! 13:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

well mebbe.. but it's probably happening to a degree now that we need a bit more than a guess :-) To the point really where it's probably sensible to consider what an editor should do if they find a threat posted somewhere credible. Could you describe what you'd recommend as a sensible course of action if an editor thought a threat was credible? Privatemusings (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For me, that would depend on the editor's country, the country the threat of violence was located in, the editor, the threat of violence itself, the editor's civil history, how comfortable the editor feels dealing with local law enforcement, and how much the editor trusts said law enforcement to take steps to conceal his identity when dealing with foreign powers if the TOV is in a different location. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose as before. Still not enough done to warn editors about the dangers of getting involved, and there are still the intrinsic issues of the history of the relevant reporting pages being available so law enforcement could easily determine the reporters of a threat without a warrant. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  The current text does not create such an issue. Warning people about the dangers of involvement, i.e. discouraging them to alert the authorities, might well be against the law. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  This is certainly new to me. Do you have any case law or precedents to that effect? I'd certainly like to see those. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Interestingly, I was "warned" in IRC by a well known admin on this very wiki that the next time I reported a TOV I would be "blocked". When asked if he was serious I was told "yes". Now this admin has not made such a block but the threat was there. Bstone (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I can't say I think that's a good idea on the administrator's part. If you feel safe with the authorities tying you to the report and having information about you, then by all means, you should report them to your heart's delight. I imagine the administrator was more worried about the Foundation's image in you making such reports with the frequency that you seem to, so I sympathize with you a little, but I don't imagine there's that really much of a problem. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Bstone, if you are talking about the incident where a few Wikipedians agreed to teach Scottish pupils that ridiculous threats against a school are a great practical joke that is definitely worth doing the next time you are drunk and have access to one of your mates' computers – then this admin was most certainly right. A minimum of common sense and knowledge about the local situation is (or rather, should be) required before reporting a threat. No, Scottish pupils don't have the "right to bear arms", and neither have their parents. But they have easy access to alcohol. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hans, I have not heard of this Scottish story until now. I am speaking in general terms- that this admin, in IRC, told me that next time I reported a TOV he would block me. I have reported several since then and he has not blocked me. However it was an attempt at a chilling effect on the part of this admin and it was very rude. If I wasn't the headstrong individual I am I might have listened. Bstone (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I shouldn't have tried to guess. Since I got it wrong I am sorry, and I have no opinion because I don't know enough about the circumstances. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposed for threats

See WP:VPP#Policy proposal on dealing with threats of violence and suicide

Legal duty to rescue

So here is a theoretical question I'd like to pose. This is meant primarily for the nay-sayers for TOV. Say there is a TOV posted against a high school in the US State of Washinton. Say that this TOV is real but you, the nay-sayer, ignores it. Say you even delete the revision and request oversight on it. Say the TOV happens- there is a school shooting. Say that the on-wiki TOV is traced to the computer of the person who committed the TOV. Did you know that in the US State of Washington you might be guilty of a crime? A misdemeanor, in fact. According to the law in at least four US states, "Four other states have enacted duty-to-rescue statutes: Vermont, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. Duties-to-rescue statutes also exist in 13 European countries. The punishment for a misdemeanor offense is a maximum of 90 days in jail, a fine of $1,000, or both."[3] No joke. In at least 4 US states and 13 countries there is a legitimate duty-to-rescue. You better believe a lawyer can use these laws in order to fault Wikipedia editors for not responding to a TOV. So, with this legal requirement in mind, how do the nay-sayers respond? Bstone (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Understanding what you are and are not required to do personally is the responsibility of the individual taking action, not of Wikipedia. As you make obvious, there is a great deal of variation in the law. We should not impose a policy on everyone because some few number of editors will be legally required to take action in some few number of instances. Avruch ^T 16:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

1) That's a gross mischaracterization of those laws - I don't see how they would apply here. 2) Even if they did, that's a matter for the Foundation to deal with, not editors. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How did I possibly mischaracterize the law? It's quite plain and simple- if you see something major and you don't say something then you are guilty of a crime and can be fined along with possible jail time. If you are the admin who deleted an on-wiki TOV then you just might find yourself on the receiving end of a criminal investigation from any of the 8 US states which require you to report such things to the authorities. Bstone (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How should we deal with that possibility, as an online encyclopedia with editors and admins from a hundred or more different nations, let alone localities? Avruch ^T 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, that's not what it says. From what I can discern the one you linked to says that it's about assisting people who have suffered actual harm, not about threats. Please stop telling people that they could suffer legal consequences. It's inappropriate for either of us to be dispensing such legal advice. If there is a legal issue (which I do not believe there is), it's a Foundation matter. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We just have to be aware that a dozen entire countries and several US states have a legal requirement for people to report to the authorities a situation in which someone's life may be harmed. If one day a country or US State decides to press charges for failure to follow these laws then these very conversations may be submitted to the court as evidence. Thus, with the advise from police that we should always report serious TOVs, several countries and US states that have laws requiring us to do so and the moral imperative to do so it should become a wiki policy to do so. As for Chunky, all I can say is courts might not take your strict interpretation and instead might use a more liberal one (and certainly lawyers will push it that way). Bstone (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to stop. Do not dispense legal advice on Wikipedia. Especially not wildly inaccurate legal advice. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not dispensing any sort of legal advice at all. I did not tell you, "You, Chunky, need to do the following legal things." I am not a lawyer so anything that I say certainly cannot be legal advice. Nothing even close. I am merely pointing out that there exist a legal issue that we need to examine. Passing it off it not a good idea. I will forward this to Mike Goodwin and see what he says. Bstone (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, let's leave it with Mike Goodwin, and I'll ask you not to tell any other editors that they may face legal consequences for not acting on a threat. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Chunky, why do you constantly tell me to not do what I already am not doing? It's rather confusing, really. Regarding Mike, I have left him a message with a link here. Bstone (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you're just playing stupid or what, but that's the contents of this whole section. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Chunky, please avoid personal attacks and remain WP:CIVIL. Insisting I am "playing stupid" is not nice at all. Bstone (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a gross misunderstanding of duty-to-rescue laws; I've only seen or heard of cases where they've applied to people who have befallen actual harm and where parties actually present fail to help. Even then, those parties are usually somehow involved; for example, a kid at a factory sticking his hand into a piece of machinery creates a duty-to-rescue for those responsible for managing the safety of the plant, or an emergency worker at the state of an accident. That is, the duty-to-rescue only exists for those who work in a capacity to help people, or people with a special relationship to the victim.

Although, yes, in the states you mention, there are good samaritan laws (not to be confused with the much more useful laws of the same name) exist that require people to help people in peril, but they're really never used; there's never really been any judicial review on them in those states, and personally, I don't think they'd stand up to it. But, again, that's a moot point; both duty-to-rescue and good samaritan laws exist with the near-express purpose of helping those who have suffered actual harm. What you're talking about is a fairly major leap. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Chunky, please stop making this into a personal attack on Bstone. WP:NPA applies to policy discussions as much as anywhere else. Bstone, you clearly are attempting to make an interpretive statement regarding the law, and arguing that it's forcibly applied to Wikipedia volunteers. Please do not do this. If Mike thinks that this issue is legit he can respond on wiki. However, I believe you're wrongly interpreting our volunteers' legal responsibilities as members of the general public. One could interpret WP:NLT to include "Don't claim that people are breaking the law if they don't do X" in policy debates. I hope it won't come to having to enforce that here. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I crossed the line. It was not my intention to make a personal attack. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NLT please rest assured that I am not insisting that someone certainly will be the recipient of a criminal investigation by one of the 12 European countries of 8 US states which require people who witness harm (or the threat thereof) by deleted a revision or hampering the appropriate referral to the authorities. Rather I am pointing out that there may be a legal issue, much like there is an issue with observing copyright law on wiki and we go through much work and pain to make sure images, works, etc have the appropriate rationals and releases before using them on-wiki. Certainly if someone points out that an image is being used against copyright law they are not going to be indef blocked for WP:NLT, right? But if we were to ignore copyright law then the wiki would be sued repeatedly. If we ignore these duty-to-respond laws, well, I think the rest is up to a lawyer to interpret and advise. Bstone (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the above, I still think you don't quite understand what the duty-to-rescue tort is in practical application; it's concerned with physicians, emergency services personnel, healthcare workers, and owners of establishments were accidents happen; it doesn't have anything to do with anything before the fact (there are other, more specific laws that govern responding to verbal/written threats that may lead to harm; mandated reporting by social workers and psychologists, for example).

Even if we did have to deal with the broader versions put into law in the states you mention, note that they don't encompass threats, they only encompas people in immediate danger and people who have become victims of an accident or rape (e.g, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 268, § 40 ("Whoever knows that another person is a victim of aggravated rape, rape, murder, manslaughter or armed robbery and is at the scene of said crime shall, to the extent that said person can do so without danger or peril to himself or others, report said crime to an appropriate law enforcement official as soon as reasonably practicable"); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-1.6 (applying to all crimes in which the victim suffers "serious physical harm"); Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.22 ("No person, knowing that a felony has been or is being committed, shall knowingly fail to report such information to law enforcement authorities"); 12 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 519 (applying to all situations where "another is exposed to grave physical harm" and requiring "reasonable assistance" rather than just reporting to the authorities); State v. Miccichi, No. 86AP08066, 1987 WL 14481, *2 (interpreting the Ohio statute as requiring a report within a "reasonable time").); also note that they've hardly ever been used. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, a duty-to-rescue law encompassing threats of violence would be a good reason to avoid having servers within a state, but thankfully, none of them exist yet, so I don't really think we have anything to worry about. I'm more worried about saying we report all threats of violence, then missing one and getting slapped with lawsuits for not reporting it contrary to our self-assigned status. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to assume that Celarnor has some sort of legal training. Clearly more than I do. Celarnor, you cite Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.22 ("No person, knowing that a felony has been or is being committed, shall knowingly fail to report such information to law enforcement authorities"). I have seen it stated, repeatedly, that making terrorist threats (such as shooting children in a school, placing a bomb at a high school, etc) is a felony. This makes sense. Thus, anyone living in Ohio or for any threats originating from Ohio falls under this statute. There might be similar in other states. Is there a federal statute? Bstone (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no federal statue, no; and I'm not sure of the history of similar bills. In my own state, its sort of a perennial thing that shows up from time to time, but it always gets shot down hard as a violation of basic civil rights by the legislature (I read the digest). I don't know about any other states, though.

Our servers aren't in Ohio. It's extremely difficult for me to believe that you can be legally compelled to do something just by browsing Wikipedia and reading "BOB WILL TAKE HIS AK-47 TO (OHIO PUBLIC SCHOOL) TOMORROW AND KILL EVERYONE" stuck in the middle of the text on Leonardo da Vinci without expressly consenting to such an obligation. I really don't think the law would survive a trial under those circumstances. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

this is exactly the kind of thing that we should be leaving to Foundation legal counsel to determine. There is absolutely no point in making a bunch of (un)educated guesses about what the possible legal ramification would be, if any. If you want to make an argument about the ethics of the situation or something like that, great. Go for it. But I don't see the value (and in fact I think there is a net negative) to this sort of legal speculation. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Chunky, and as stated above the legal counsel has been alerted both on his talk page and email. We are merely discussing, something which happens pretty regularly on talk pages. We talk. Thank you for respecting the conversation. Bstone (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bstone is entirely correct, these laws typically also pertain to certain threats. It depends on the specific case whether one can be found guilty for not reporting, and this is obviously a grey area, but the issue here is that Wikipedia would be at odds with the law if it were to discourage reporting threats of violence. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If these laws typically also pertain to certain threats, can you find a precedent? I've been looking through Ohio case law relevant to the statute for the past 10 minutes or so, and I've only been able to find a few cases, all of which involve gross acts of violence. None of them have involved something so far out as a threat of violence on a website where the location of the threatening party can't be verified by the reader. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I left a few messages at one of the Clerk of Courts offices in Ohio requesting a few dockets; all the cases that I've found have been tied in with cases of gross negligence; those that haven't have otherwise been linked with some other criminal act; one reached the state Supreme Court on constitutional self-incrimination grounds. Anyway, just thought I'd make sure that anyone reading this not make the same mistake made by the parent. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not respect this conversation. It has no value. It can never reach a legal conclusion. At best it goes nowhere. At worst it spreads misinformation. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

...Um...thanks? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you are quite welcome not to participate and instead focus your energies on other parts of the project. Have a great weekend! Bstone (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just tell me, absent a legal finding from Foundation counsel, how can this discussion be in any way productive? Just give me one possible example. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It was productive for me; I hadn't realized that Ohio's duty-to-rescue law was so vague until now. If you don't want to talk about it, then don't. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, carry on. But I don't think the talk page guidelines support this sort of discussion ("The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page"). We certainly can't change, or at least shouldn't change, the project page based on a legal conclusion formed by editors. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the problem, Celarnor. Ohio's duty to act law is broadly written and rather vague. Thus the authorities might just have standing to bring charges against a wiki editor who fails to report such a felony. It makes me a little nervous that a good-faith editor of longstanding might somehow become subject to criminal prosecution due to on-wiki actions. I really would like to never see that happen. Bstone (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be difficult to prove. They would have to know that a reader was aware of a threat of violence, which would mean they would have to be reading and parsing all your HTTP traffic, which is ... unbelievably computationally expensive and ridiculous to an extreme degree, and which they wouldn't be doing unless they had a warrant for the same. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What if it is an admin who deleted the revision after a short discussion on ANI, and that admin just so happens to reside in Ohio (and says so on their userpage)? Bstone (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Turns out, it couldn't be tried anyway; in Ohio, only credible threats are actionable (even if it is false), and as it has been pointed out numerous times, those who read Wikipedia are not ipso facto endowed with the expertise to distinguish credible threats from non-credible ones. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) TIME OUT 21:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's time for Shabbat. Later! Bstone (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

threads related to this policy

It might help when considering which (if any) tag should be applied to this page (policy?, rejected? etc.) for us to take a look at whether or not it describes wiki practice with any accuracy - feel free to add any and all below (I know there are more!) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

and in the wiki spirit of 'being bold' - I'm confident that in absolutely every instance of such events over the last year the outcome was per this advice. It's time :-) I've marked it as policy. Privatemusings (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And I've unmarked it. --Carnildo (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

why? :-) (as in, let's talk about it :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Because there's no consensus for marking it as policy, and because marking it as policy has been soundly rejected the last few times it's come up. --Carnildo (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop doing that. People are going to start thinking that this is actually policy when you do that; its a good thing Carnildo was around to revert. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

< I'm not sure that I've ever actually done 'that' before, Celarnor? :-) - what I guess I'm trying to say is not so much that I believe that this should be policy, but rather that a rather strong 'global consensus' actually exists in support of it. This page describes accurately the behaviour of a large volume, and wide range, of wiki editors, in my view - as evidence by the thread/s below. I'll dig out a few more when I get the chance to show you what I mean.... Privatemusings (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think asserting a broad consensus is disingenuous, because you have been following the development of this page since its creation and you have seen as well as I have that there has never been anything even approaching consensus on marking this as a policy. It is essentially an essay - an essay that mirrors what some people often do (although the selection of items that make it onto an admin noticeboard does not necessarily represent the actual body of events that occur) but there is no consensus, and there never has been, for making this even slightly prescriptive. I would hope that this is the last time for a long time that someone tries to declare by fiat this essay to be policy without at the very least discussing it here first. Avruch ^T 21:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

no fiat, av - I'm just glad the D bit after the B and R has kicked off :-) - I want to be clear that I agree with you about the consensus on this page, however I do believe that there is a strong 'global consensus' (in fact, to the point which is strong enough to warrant marking this as policy) - there's no rush though, and my argument would certainly be alot stronger when I've dug through some archives etc. and grabbed a few more links for the below - we can return to discussion thereafter... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy != "The behavior of most editors." Policy is "You do this or you get punished". Guidelines are "You should really probably do this", and essays are "Some number of people do this, you might want to look into it." The first two things are not coterminous, although they do intersect. It's an important distinction to make for a number of reasons, most of which I've been through before. Personally, since nothing has changed re. mandated reporting laws, and since there still isn't anything that discusses the dangers and risks of dealing with authority figures involved in these kinds of threats and encourages editors to be thoughtful and evaluate their positions rather than jump on the reporting bandwagon, I can't support it even as a guideline, and would probably never do so a policy until the legal environment re. self-prescribed mandated reporting in the US changed quite a bit regardless of the content of the essay. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

have you considered the model 'policy describes what we do around the wiki'? - can it apply at all? (I'm happy to chat further about this, but have absolutely no plans to change the policy tags again for a very (very) long time!) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, policy doesn't describe what we do around the wiki. That's an incredible overgeneralization. There are other things that happen that aren't the venue of policy; like I said, the behavior of editors and policy are not coterminous. Policy describes specific actions that you have to take in specific situations, or risk getting sanctions. This includes things like "you have to use reliable sources" (RS) and "all material must be verifiable" (V). There's no reason to make something a policy if you don't intend to punish people for not following, as that is the only advantage it has over a guideline. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, we waited a whole extra 6 days!And skipped the whole "asking the community" part. Seriously, this is bordering on disruption now. There's been enough discussions that resulted in no consensus or consensus against this as policy that it should be really really obvious that this needs an actual discussion with a clear conclusion before marking it as anything other than an essay or rejected, not just one person's (especially someone who's obviously a supporter of making this into a policy) hunch about a "global consensus." Mr.Z-man 01:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There's the catchall "disruptive" crime again. MrZ, surely you can discuss this without alluding to the need for a block. Right? Bstone (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm calling a spade a spade. After so many discussions on this that ended in no consensus or rejection, including one slightly more than a month ago with no non-minor changes made in the meantime, I find it extremely difficult to believe that Privatemusings thought the policy tag would "stick" or that it would be uncontroversial. This battle of attrition needs to stop. Repeatedly renominating what's substantially the same proposal like this is unproductive. Either edit it to address the concerns or let it go. Mr.Z-man 04:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

He did it in good faith, not to cause issues. You are creating a problem where none previously existed. Please stop being disruptive. Bstone (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, you win, I'm not going to waste my time here anymore, I don't give a shit what this is tagged as, I'm going to treat it as a rejected proposal until I see a discussion that would indicate otherwise anyway, so I don't see why I should waste my time, I'm obviously just another abusive admin, making block threats to win an argument, so my opinion doesn't count anyway. Mr.Z-man 17:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

advice on this page would appear to have been followed

• 6th Nov

advice on this page would appear not to have been followed

• (insert link here)

Really sad case, which illustrates why we must take these seriously

I would like to suggest people read this news article about a very recent suicide of a young man, 19 years old. He posted on a website for body builders that he would kill himself and even broadcasted it on his webcam. People ignored him and he died. His father is quoted as saying, "But rather than get help, he was ignored," Biggs said. I am posting this here as an attempt to sway those who have stated we should ignore all threats of violence and suicide. Who would think that a legitimate suicide threat would be posted on a website for body builders? If that can happen then surely a similar thing can happen here on Wikipedia. Let us take this seriously and listen to the father of this young man and not ignore these threats! Bstone (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. So this kid not only made suicidal threats, but actually swallowed a bunch of pills, visibly on a webcam. The whole thing took place over a matter of hours. In this case, there was plenty of reason to believe the threat was credible. I'd put this in a different category than the kind of drive-by suicidal comments we sometimes see here. Friday (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And even tho he did all of this on a webcam people still ignored him. Let's listen to the pleadings of his grieving father and not allow anything like this to go ignored on wikipedia. Amen. Bstone (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is just another example of how truly dangerous the internet can be. If we report a suicide attempt, and it's fake, what have we lost? A few minutes of our time, time we otherwise would have spent doing what, stub sorting? But if we report a suicide attempt and it's real, we've saved a life. There's no reason to ignore these things. L'Aquatique[talk] 07:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK. The minute I see someone on Wikipedia swallow a bunch of pills, I'll report it. If, on the other hand, all I see is someone posting "zOMG, don't revert my vandalism or else I'll kill myself", then I'll give that the attention it deserves. Different situations call for different responses. Friday (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Friday, for an admin and for such a serious topic your sarcastic comments are really not appreciated. Bstone (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's prohibiting you from reporting threats to your heart's content. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not that is not actually true. A few admins have threatened- and one actually did- delete a TOV before it was appropriately reported to the authorities. Thus they interfered with the ability to save someone's life. Do you think that is the right thing to do? Bstone (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this particular event has any implications for Wikipedia or our policy. Our essays and whatnot don't advocate "ignoring" any threats, and few people have said that serious threats should be ignored. What people are against is requiring, or seeming to require, action on the part of someone who sees a threat. Wikipedians showing their libertarian streak. Avruch ^T 16:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There are several good reasons to not make that policy or "require" action - including potential liability if someone fails to act (for the foundation or the admin), some people who just outright disagree with this course of action, the occational blatant prank, etc.

I for one rather strongly urge people do to so, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Echo this. Whether or not someone decides to get involved with the authorities is a choice they, and only they should make. Wikipedia is not in any kind of position to urge people to take that kind of step. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Thus we should be very upset when certain admins come across TOVs and delete them from the history before they are acted upon. I have been told this would be the course of action by certain admins and it truly horrifies me. Bstone (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated

I've updated the main page to reflect the WMF now having an emergency contact email address specifically for threats of violence. Email to this address will be routed directly to WMF staff who have procedures in place to contact the appropriate authorities if necessary. Note, the "responding to" page has already been updated to reflect this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Are these procedures in place for the full 24 hours. Most people in the USA are asleep when I am on Wikipedia here in Australia. --Bduke (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)