Talk:Swatting

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Telecommunications Mid‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computer Security: Computing Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Mid-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Justin TV

Justin TV experienced the first livestreaming swatting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV966TomxdY - "The classic video of Justin and crew having cops bust in after receiving a call about a stabbing. This occurred on March 21st." "That is messed up." "Putting your hands up is the right thing to do."

Article stance

This article is bullshit! Firstly, swatting is not a "prank", it is a serious crime, which can land you in federal prison. Reading this article as of now, a basement-dwelling spotty fat geek may think swatting the second neighbour for pure fun is an excellent idea, but when he has to share a supermax cell with a ******, for five years, it is too late to regret.

Also there was a case where an HK MP5 armed SWAT team invaded the false address at midnight using helicopter rappel because of a swatting trick. Guess how the residents felt about that... The elimination of deaf-oriented text-to-speech phone services is already under consideration, because of their frequent misuse to create swatting "pranks". A few antisocial assholes are destroying peoples' lives and hurt the services created for the disabled people, just to make borderline terrorist "pranks".

The amoral stance of the current article should be adjusted to fit common values. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to do so. Please try and refrain from profanity when making your point though.Brinlong (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, someone did a swatting on Kirtaner, too! Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to remove racist reference. I'm disappointed that Wikipedia left it up for so long.

In Fiction?

I know that this has appeared on the small screen in the opening of an episode of CSI Miami, but is this the only time?Graham1973 (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frey/Erickson

There have been reports recently that several right-wing bloggers have been victims of SWATting. Worth an edit once this story develops? 131.111.243.142 (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need more mainstream media verification of these events--there has been none--and not just a blogosphere echo chamber that has repeated this story unquestioningly. Patrick Frey's dramatic story doesn't make much sense. If you listen to the recording, the caller originally said "A man shot a woman" and then when pressed said, "I shot her and it was my wife", wouldn't give a name and then hung up. End of story. So the cops took this at face value and, according to Frey, dispatched a hazmat truck, helipcopter, a fire truck, an army of police and an ambulance? This is a police force experiencing severe budget cuts to a degree they are having trouble solving homicides, yet they have the resources to awaken that kind of response to a rather dull hoax call? When the police arrived they find the wife alive and then force her against a wall and frisk her? She was supposed to be the victim, so that didn't tip them that this was a prank? The police didn't arrive and search the house, but instead dragged the wife out and then asked her where her kids are, and only then return to the house to look? The caller said nothing about kids, so why did the "SWAT team" ask where the children are? None of this sound like Standard Operating Procedure. Emergency services receive prank phone calls all the time; if his story is true then the LASD needs to answer some real questions for an insane overreaction to a prank call. Compare Frey's account to how officers in Palm Beach responded to another swatting prank. --David Shankbone 21:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I responded to you on another page, its worth retierating here. Mr Shankbone, like me, I am sure you have responded to dozens if not hundreds of emergency dispatch calls in your long career as an LEO, but let me remind you that any call to EMS where the caller says they have shot a family member and might kill some more are taken very seriously by the responders. Your belief that they overreacted MUST be based on your years of experience as a first responder. Likewise, your critique of the LASD’s “Standard Operating Procedure” must be based on a comprehensive firsthand knowledge of what those procedures are, how they are interpreted in the field and they differ from other department. The whole reason “swatting” works is because the perpetrator spoofs the caller ID and dispatch has no way to know it’s a “prank”. They only figure that out after they respond to the call. When dispatch responds to a call like the one in the link, everyone who is close enough to lend support, regardless of department will respond. I have responded to a similar call, real not a hoax, where uniformed and plain clothes officers from seven municipalities, two sheriff’s departments, the state police and a local FBI substation were on the scene within 5 minutes.

So unless you have some firsthand knowledge of this particular situation and the departments involved, keep you uniformed speculations to yourself. 1002PM (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you consider this a sufficiently reliable source or not I'll leave to you, but Fox has just reported on this. They report that LASD has filed a report with the FBI; beyond that, they seem to indicate that they're relying on the blog reports. Anyway, here's the report: [1]. Enough to add yet, or worth waiting to see if other news sources pick this up? 131.111.243.142 (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your source seems to be substantial enough to include the Frey case, but be prepared for the edit war that is likely to result. 67.6.129.142 (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted/rewritten

Swatting is not a major phenomenon, there are a number of articles this can be merged into, and the 'Techniques' section reads like a manual for commiting an act of swatting. This article needs to be seriously rewritten or deleted. DesertPhox (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the "History" section of this article is also a joke. It is just an example farm. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - with Twitch becoming increasingly mainstream or at least a major subcultural - almost everyone in that subculture knowns what swatting is. Twitch streamers have even guessed when hearing loud noises - "I think I'm being swatted." These incidents made major news. And there are top 10 swatting youtube videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8881:499F:D04B:E881:6357:7832 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kootra

Why do we need this one specific instance about Kootra? This is happening all the time. Should we talk about every single instance? Bugefun (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 It's obvious this is an article that's more about a list of notable "victories" (crimes) than a real discussion of the phenomenon, and it's ironic that no one is willing to fix it or engage in the discussion, probably out of fear. -ANON  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.212.175.30 (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite, lack of info

For an extremely common thing that happens this article is very vague and lacks detail, such as how many swattings have occurred, or how many a year, or are there more than previous years. Also there are videos that discuss swatting, or maybe a picture showing someone gaming and them being taken down, ie Kootra, at least he's mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.239.153 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick Google search for statistics and nothing really immediately came up, but I may continue to research it at a later point. I have found some articles that could make for some interesting sources for improving and expanding this article though. I'll post them below in case someone wants to use them for improving this article before I get around to doing so. JaykeBird (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/technology/online-swatting-becomes-a-hazard-for-popular-video-gamers-and-police-responders.html?_r=0

https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/26/tech/women-get-%E2%80%9Cswatted%E2%80%9D-too

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/the-crime-of-swatting-fake-9-1-1-calls-have-real-consequences1

Recent Twitch Swatting report: KoopaTroopa

KoopaTroopa was recently raided. At about 5:40:00 of this stream: http://www.twitch.tv/koopatroopa787/v/3755074

A Reddit topic can be found at: http://www.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/2uuksr/koopatroopa_just_got_swatted/

Video of the aftermath (a clip of the last moment of that stream) can be seen at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn-U9S7aV6M

Please, update as you see fit. - 月夜丸ゼロ (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs reliable sourcing first. Once it shows up on a news site we should be able to add it. — Strongjam (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't use. I need a news source like Kotaku or something from here. Get one and I will add. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's starting to pop up on VG News sites:

— Strongjam (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add it in.FusionLord (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Lynn

The section on Grace Lynn is cited using sensationalist, biased news sources which upon examination do not meet Wikipedia's reliable source standards. Both Oregonlive and the Dailynews do not provide any further investigation besides the good faith of Grace Lynn. This thread on Reddit, while biased, shows capable citation and presents proof that rather than the 'Gamergate Harassment Movement' it was Lizard Squad posing as Gamergate followers. Keep in mind that it was Lizard Squad's services used to DDOS 8chan, a popular pro-Gamergate website. 69.204.70.182 (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is swatting terrorism?

The lede for the article includes a source stating that the act of swatting can be considered terrorism. A well-meaning anon IP is attempting to remove that connection. On their first attempt, they merely removed it and used the edit summary to say it was wrong. It was reverted, as personal opinion does not override a cited source making the connection. The IP returned, this time citing a published work, which can be found here. The cited page only defines the term "terrorism", and does not explicitly state "swatting is not terrorism"; it is again the anon saying that swatting doesn't rise to their interpretation of the definition. --McDoob AU93 19:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, this is a WP:NOR (and WP:SYNTH) issue. The source doesn't say that "swatting is not a popular dance craze", either. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Globalising

I've marked this article for globalisation as it deals exclusively with the US and Canada. However it isn't clear whether this is because of a limited perspective within the article or whether it is something exclusive to those two countries. If the latter, the article lead needs to be rewritten to indicate this - a section discussing why this is would be good to add too if there are sources. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the title

In ictu oculi, can you revert the article back to "Swatting" and then propose the RM? --George Ho (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Re-Pinging In ictu oculi. 08:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems when a user name is inserted like that 30 seconds after the original edit it doesn't "ping" the editor it is intended for. I would have happily agreed to revert that if a { ping | } template had let me know. And I requested such to the admin refusing the move below. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. The article was recently moved without discussion, and the consensus is to put it back. As there are no other articles with the same name, there is no need for a disambiguator. (closed by non-admin page mover) Brad v 15:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swatting (hoaxing) → Swatting – This was moved recently, but there are no other articles of the same name. I asked the editor to undo the renaming, but I've not yet see the response. George Ho (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: To me the main meaning of "swatting" is swatting flies. Plus homophonous "swotting" = intensely studying a school subject. See wikt:swat and wikt:swot. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Swatting is" in Google Books produces many more results for the natural meaning. On the other hand recent mainstream news sources show "swatting" in quotes, and cite urbandictionary.com, so this entering the US language now. It isn't the meaning outside US however, where SWAT is only something known from US TV shows. This article would be "prank calls to the police" in most English-speaking countries. Or maybe it's solely a US phenomena? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy support contested, undiscussed (and inept) move. The intro doesn't say this is a hoax, but something that happens. Would like to see IIO given a short block for disruption as well. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this article isn't the primary topic, then what is? There isn't an article on swatting flies, and it's not like it's better off as a redirect to fly swatter. Please ping me if you have some other rationale, but until then, the disambiguator here is redundant and the move makes sense. czar 01:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi hasn't been able or willing to reply to any concerns here. He hasn't even been able to find anything to disambiguate this from. Swatting continues to redirect here, making this move completely, utterly worthless unless your hellbent on having parenthesis on each and every article on Wikipedia. Revert. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I agree that this obscure meaning should not be the primarytopic. Instead, I'd make a redirect that links things including Fly swatter and Fire swatter. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to be the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as there aren't even any other topics called "Swatting". A link to the Swat dab page is appropriate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Bearing the full cost"

The article claims that in California the perpetrator of swatting "bears the full cost". But the full cost of having someone killed would obviously include murder charges or something similar. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]