Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Threats of violence/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Kicking off Talk Page

I think a short guideline or policy may help as a centralised location for discussion, and hopefully it might help stop the noticeboards having to cover exactly the same ground every few weeks... as such, I support it conceptually... and will have a little reword to tweak it slightly..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a note on AN. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
And the mailing list. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy name

It may be just a first impression, but I'm not totally into the current name - here are a couple of other ideas for consideration;

I'll create a shortcut too, while we think about it.... Privatemusings (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy

While I think the policy is a great idea, apparently proper procedure right now is to report it to the WMF, who have special peoples that can get down to figuring out stuff like this. That's how we did it for the recent bomb threat to Plano High School on their page. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

While alerting WMF is a good step, since threats can come in at any time (2am alerting to an 8am attack) it should not prevent someone from making the call to the police. Plus in the Plano case I personally called the local police and informed them of the threat. Here for more info. Bstone (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I agree, ordinary users should not be responsible for contacting authorities, it should be done through the foundation, or at the very least an admin. The system we have now sort of works, just reporting it to WP:ANI, surely theres no need to change that. I imagine having a Threats noticedboard would be a bit too beans, which is a shame--Jac16888 (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
While I am not an admin, I am a licensed EMT with years of experience as a public safety professional. I regularly work with law enforcement as part of my job and I regularly deal with people who are suicidal and homicidal. As such I felt very comfortable making the call to the police dept. Since I also have a lot of IT experience I felt comfortable with the IP info, diffs, etc. I believe that once a threat has been posted it should be reported to AN/I and someone, anyone, should take immediate responsibility in reporting it to the authorities. Thus, this policy would make it clear that while these might be hoaxes, we do not and will not tolerate them and will always err on the side of caution, better safe than sorry, etc. Bstone (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bstone and disagree with jac16888, we should have a dedicated board were experienced and trusted admins or above (an obvious exception might be Bstone) would be able to respond to these events. (Hypnosadist) 03:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Bstone i can see very well why you saw fit to contact whoever, you're clearly qualified to do so, but i imagine you or the few editors similarly qualified will not always be able to make the call, and the average user should not have to, i remember a case several months ago, i think it was a threat, maybe a suicide note its hard to remember, where an editor made the call to the police but then became very nervous about what they'd done and needed a lot of reassurance. As for an dedicated board Hypnosadist, that would be a terrible idea, since it would no doubt increase the number of threats recieved i.e. WP:BEANS--Jac16888 (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that AN/I is the most appropriate place to keep the discussion. I hope that this proposal becomes policy very quickly so that there does not need to be a discussion as to taking future threats seriously or not, but rather moving them forward into the reporting stage. Perhaps making some sort of incident report form which can be filled out afterwards just in order to have some papertrail other than AN/I just in case law enforcement wants to see a centralized discussion. Tho perhaps AN/I is sufficient. In any case, anyone who feels comfortable reporting threats of violence should, admin or not. I will say that when I talked to the police I gave my name, address, drivers license #, etc. It was a bit invasive but I was happy to do so if my participation might save a life. Many years ago I was a volunteer host on AOL and helped intervene when someone made a legit threat of suicide. I called his local police and gave the contact info to the AOL TOS folks who released his home address. A few weeks later I got a thank you note from him saying that the right help got to him, he got to the right hospital and thanked me for my assistance. In sum, whoever feels comfortable reporting should but the debate over Wikipedia taking threats seriously should be put to rest with this proposal and I hope I speak for us all when I say Wikipedia takes all threats of violence seriously. Bstone (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100% with all of the above statement--Jac16888 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wikipedia takes all threats of violence seriously and if people here think an/i is the way to deal with it then so be it. (Hypnosadist) 07:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I, for one, surely do not join in the "take seriously" sentiment, but more significantly I'm not at all certain that the community broadly hold that view (one may see, at the very least, that various objections are raised at the AN/I thread [although unfortunately not yet here] that references this proposal) or that it might be understood as accurately reflecting codified practice. This is, of course, only a proposed policy, one for the adoption of which a consensus will be required, and while such a consensus may well emerge, it probably ought to be observed that the community don't regard this as such a plain, settled issue as do some here and that elevating TOV or some similarly-styled essay about real world harms is not a matter simply of our determining exactly what our prescribed practice ought to be but whether there ought to be any such prescription at all (to be sure, we would probably do well to have some policy or statement of general practice, since editors, in their capacities as individual citizens, will likely, and are free to [just as I am free not to], continue to report certain threats [perhaps to my chagrin], but it is not, at least to me, clear that the community are interested in taking a position on the issue of whether all threats ought to be treated in a single fashion or whether anyone should feel encouraged or discouraged to report putative threats). Joe 23:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Would this work well as a part of WP:LEGAL? They seem to be related, as making a threat of harm is illegal in most places, and definitely in the United States, where the Foundation is located. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:LEGAL has some standing in this, but it doesn't directly address the issue of taking threats seriously. Bstone (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I know it doesn't right now, but I think that this would work well as an expanded WP:LEGAL, especially if we broadened it to be basically WP:THREAT (making that the main one), covering both, "I'll sue you!" and "I'll kill/maim/bomb/etc. you!". They are so closely related (IMO) that I think it would be good to have them be together in the same policy. They both deal with real world threats; just different types of real world threats. It just makes sense to have both together in the same policy. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
While there is an obiouvs need for such a policy (as WP:THREAT ect... is not one) I think this one needs to be greatly improved uppon. It needs to clearly state what needs to be given to the authorities, and if there are any circumstances when it should be dealt with internally. I have personally contacted the police many times, and have sense created my own style of doing so, that is gather all the information need, the user in question and if they are an IP run that IP on something like GeoBytes to get its general location, get the diff of the threat, the date and time it happened, the url of the ANI thread, or where ever it was reported, along with the address, phone number, and the email of WMF, I then call authorities and they often request this information be sent by email. Every time they say they recommend that we contact them in these situations, and I generaly get a call back from them explaining how things are going. I have never once seen a situation where they where unhappy we reported it. I think that this policy should include guidelines as to what information to provide them with, and a timeline for doing so. Tiptoety talk 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety, I agree with you that we must come up with a policy for exactly how to respond to threats of violence, but in the short term we must have a policy which clearly states that we do actually take all threats of violence seriously and report them to authorities. That way there will be no confusion as to the policy on how if to proceed but rather that we do. I believe this is the first step. Next step is drafting a response procedure. Bstone (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually think I would much rather see the specifics worked out before the policy is put into effect. This is a policy that needs to be very clear to all users, and needs to have some fundamentals down so that it does not create more confusion. Such things as: What constitutes a threat? Should the user/IP making the threat be blocked, if so for how long? Who should contact police, the user who notices the threat, someone who answers up on ANI? Should it only be a admin that reports the threat so that we dont have just some user representing wikipedia to the police? I personally do not think this is a policy that needs rushing, as most of the threat reports and ANI get handled pretty fast and the result is almost contact police. I guess I just do not want to put a policy into effect that is just going to be loosely built, where there are areas that could be interpreted, or areas not covered at all. All that will lead to is a longer ANI discussion about how to apply the policy to the incident at hand. Tiptoety talk 22:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand your view and it's valid, tho it seems to me that the first hurdle to overcome is determining on a policy level to take threats seriously or not. Once we have determined that we do take all threats serious, and not pass them off as jokes or hoaxes, then we can create a policy for responding. Truthfully I am a bit concerned that there has never been a policy like this made before, only an essay. It's time for us as a community to move forward, elevate this proposal to policy level (once we agree on how it's written, which I think it's written pretty ok), and then draft a response to threats policy. Bstone (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Privatemusings, "To minimise distraction and disruption, consider these words; Report. Revert. Ignore." Bstone (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea for us to have a policy in place for dealing with these situations. I agree that it should not be for us to decide what is serious and what is not. We should report threats and let the police do their jobs. AN/I seems like a reasonable place for reports to be made. Aleta Sing 16:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

threat against wikipedian

If the threat is specific to a Wikimedian, and they are active at the time of the incident being discovered, it is general courtesy to ask them about the course of action. Bstone (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this would fall under WP:ATTACK. Tiptoety talk 22:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

redundancy checks....

hi folks - I popped a note on the village pump about this policy - partly to check to see if similar ideas had been touted previously - we need to check out the following and possibly merge or clarify purpose;

thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, PM, for checking on these. Those are currently only essays while I believe it is my (our?) intention to elevate this proposal to policy status. As far as a policy of how to respond, that needs to be worked out, but at least this proposal says that we view all threats to be absolutely serious and not jokes, hoaxes, etc. Bstone (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My first impression is that the first link relates mainly to self-harm (a valid concern) - and that 'Fire' is a good fit in the essay space, but probably not as policy. I'm most comfortable with a wording which points out that if you think a threat is serious, then you should probably report it - not because that's wikipedia policy, but because it's the only sensible course of action. The key thing from my perspective is to make it clear that any individual action would be the responsibility of that individual (as in don't call the police and say 'wikipedia made me call you....' - that's just silly!). We should also, of course, emphasise that it's a perfectly sensible and normal thing to do to let an authority (though maybe not Tom Cruise) know that someone's making threats - even if wikipedia based..... that's as far as I've thought it through so far! - Privatemusings (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

possible refs

it's possible that some ref.s might be in order for the policy page - just to make very clear how firmly this proposed policy matches the advice issued by police forces and security agencies worldwide... please do add to this list if you find any advice from a suitable source; - Privatemusings (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

...I've only spent a couple of minutes grabbing these ones - and I feel certain there are more from agencies throughout the world - they may or may not be useful as ref.s / links - I'm not sure yet..... Privatemusings (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this page is an excellent idea and I hope there will be an official policy on this soon. Actually, I discovered the threat related to Plano Senior High School and wasn't sure what to do. I posted messages on the Wikipedia Help-page, on the discussion page of WP:AIV and on the talk page of the user who actually reverted the threat. Once we have this page, an "odyssey" like this could be prevented, what could save valuable time if the threat is real.

Two further suggestions for the policy:

  • Admins should be instructed not to block the user/IP that made the threat. Reason: If the threat is real, the IP/user may give further hints on the crime it intends with future edits. In this case, I believe further information on such a crime is more important than enforcing Wikipedia's general policy regarding Vandalism/blocking.
  • Furthermore, immediately reverting the edit containing the threat should also be avoided. Reason: The threatening IP/user may feel that he/she is unobserved and may make further edits that reveal additional information. Also, the interest to keep Wikipedia Vandalism-free is less important than the objective to receive further information.

What do you think? Best regards, --Abrech (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your reasoning is pretty good, abrech - but I'm not sure we need to spell it all out in the actual policy - you'll see that I've recommended below that there might be another 'framework' or set of guidelines which spell out what's best to do - but I think that the fundamental policy should stay quite simple - perhaps it's more finished than we think right now! - Privatemusings (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Objection to this policy

(copied from W:ANI by myself — Gavia immer (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Having a response plan for things like this is not in itself bad, especially since Jimbo has said we should operate as if these threats are generally real. However, in fact, these threats are generally not real; most people making them just want attention, so they might make hoax threats, make real threats and back out of them, or make ambiguous threats and claim, loudly, that Wikipedia's reaction is bogus – or, they might make real threats. A pernicious minority will be joe jobs or attempts to injure a third party by forcing attention on them (Police or otherwise). We don't want to encourage any of these, least of all the genuine ones, but I don't see how we can have a prominent policy page like that without it attracting more such threats to the wiki. If anyone wants community policy on this, step one is to figure out how to have that policy without attracting badness. I'm afraid this page doesn't do it. I'm not trying to crap in Bstone's cornflakes, here; our typical reactions to this sort of thing are badly disorganized, even among people who mean well, and attempts to fix this are laudable. The WP:BEANS issue needs to be fixed first, though, or this policy makes more trouble than it can ever prevent. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"these threats are generally not real" Generally being the operative way, the problem is you are betting with peoples health and safety and that is not acceptable as Jimbo said.
"If anyone wants community policy on this, step one is to figure out how to have that policy without attracting badness." Can't be done, but thats just tough it does not remove from us our duty of care as a 21c ethical not for profit organisation.
All police services say let them do the policing just tell them whats happened and thats what we should do. (Hypnosadist) 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It's always, always better to be safe than sorry. What might look like a hoax or joke might in fact turn out to be a credible attack. The Plano High School threat had a date, time and device/mechanism. That's very specific and very, very scary. Their police dept was very interested in this sort of threat and said we should report everything any anything despite how how of a joke we might consider it to be. If Jimbo said we should take it seriously, public safety professionals like police (and myself) say to take them serious and common sense says to err on the side of caution then I am thinking this proposal should be elevated to policy ASAP. Bstone (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no particular reason for us to denigrate threats etc. received on Wikipedia, because the authorities, not generally understanding the Internet in particular or Wikipedia in general, are likely to do that anyway - but that's not our problem. Our problem is to see that pertinent information gets to people better equipped to evaluate it and act on it. It hardly matters if most of these threats are false alarms, if one out of ten thousand helps to prevent an incident, then the policy will be worthwhile. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. And at the same time people might stop making hoax threats once they hear the police visit you soon after it's made, but that's tangential. Bstone (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

I removed the recommendation to contact AN/I for now..... I think there's a sensible discussion to be had, and framework to be developed for what pragmatic steps to take to best implement this policy - but I'm less sure that it's a good fit actually on the policy page - particularly given its likely something that will be quite susceptible to creep of various kinds... no biggie though - just my tuppence! - Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

PM and I discussed this together on IRC. We've agreed on AN/I for now. Bstone (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
and the dabbling continues! - I've reworked that bit to try and incorporate both 'real world' and wiki-based reporting... oh, and I've added the ref.s too - I'm getting a good sense of progress! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

copyedit

I've made a series of small copyediting edits to the text, with no intent to change the meaning of what was there, just to clarify and streamline the wording. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The one thing I'm a bit ambivalent about is the use of "real world", which sounds just a bit light for a serious subject - btu I can't think of an appropriate replacement. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Support your changes, Ed. I think 'real world' is probably ok, but would welcome any alternative ideas, remembering that to be concise and clear is a huge plus, I reckon. Privatemusings (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Report, Revert, Ignore

A kinda obvious derivative of 'Bold Revert Discuss' (and WP:DENY, I guess) - I came up with this little mantra as an easy way of recommending a course of action to cause the least fuss. So that's its intention - and without prejudicing discussion of whether or not it should be mandatory, or whether or not the slightly stronger push in that direction we have now (which I totally support in terms of clarity), i wanted to just note that it was initially intended as a suggestion only.

I guess there may be cases where to revert and ignore might not be best, but then that bit could always be ignored, I guess..... thoughts most welcome.... Privatemusings (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right that in clarifying, I also turned a suggestion into something stronger. I've rstored "consider". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Implications for privacy policy and checkusers?

While these are often made either by a non-logged-in user or in an article that implies enough about the location to at least find a jurisdiction; what should be done in cases where this is not the case? —Random832 17:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the priority is to report - in the case of logged in users, it's probably wise to include the foundation office details, and maybe OTRS, in the report. I'm not sure we need to spell that out though, the danger of 'creep' is fairly large here, I would think. My feeling is that any 'investigation' is best led by someone with some experience and expertise (eg. a professional like a police officer) - and I have a presumption that that could be facilitated largely 'off-wiki', though p'raps 'on-wiki' if absolutely necessary.... Privatemusings (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I believe the Foundation gets involved when police authorities seek information about users, should the policy say something about notifying them as well? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Random. This policy proposal is simply here to codify that on this project all threats of violence are taken seriously-- and reported internally to AN/I. As for responding, that will be in a follow up proposal once this policy is approved. I have given thought to the senario of a logged in user making a threat of violence- homicide or suidcide. In that case it would be reported to AN/I and check users would get immediately involved to uncover the person's IP address. Either the checkusers themselves would make the calls to the police/EMS or turn over the info to a trusted admin or editor who has been "approved" to respond to these sorts of issues. I envision a short list of people who are entrusted by the community to respond to these issues. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Defining Admin response

Reporting the problem to WP:AN/I is a good first step, but last year I was part of a group that was involved in this type of situation (bomb threat from a school IP) and much panic ensued among admins about the appropriate course of action. It would have been helpful to have a specific procedure to follow - for instance:

  1. one admin should be delegated the task of contacting the school administration as well as local police.
  2. provide local responders with relevant information: nature of threat, time and place, user ids, etc.
  3. ensure all information is preserved in place

Ronnotel (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronnotel, what you wrote is very similar to what I have in mind for the external reporting proposal. Perhaps you'd like to be part of the group which drafts it? Bstone (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
happy to help. Should we start WP:TOV/External reporting or does it already exist somewhere? Ronnotel (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes. Let us. Want to start it? Bstone (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Title of this essay

Threats of Violence - why the scare caps? ~ Riana ⁂ 05:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a proposed policy, not an essay. Why the capital v? Why not? Bstone (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, actually - being Very Susceptible to Unnecessary Cap.s myself, it grates whenever I (finally) see it - I'll move it over to the less scary small 'v' ! Privatemusings (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
ah..... that's much calmer! - I can't stand them when I spot them! - thanks, Riana..... Privatemusings (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Going too far, I'm afraid

I generally support the theory of behaviour behind this draft. However, I strongly believe that it should not be elevated to policy; even as a guideline, its language is too strong.

We cannot create a moral imperative for people to report perceived threats of violence or self-harm. Encourage, probably. But the use of strong language ("should", etc) creates an ethical obligation that goes far beyond any legislated requirement for most countries of the world. If editors "should" do something, then people are in the position of having to defend why they did not do something; that's completely in reverse of everything else we do here, where the only obligation is to be responsible for acts we have actually carried out.

I'll give this some more thought, but in its current format, I would object to this being promoted as either policy or guideline. Risker (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, Risker. Let me try to address your concerns. I fully appreciate and understand them. The idea of this proposed policy is not to require people to report threats of violence to the police but rather to establish that threats are taken 100% seriously. Instead of passing off threats as a bad hoax or joke the basis of this police is to codify wikipedia position that we accept them at face value. We then ask people to drop a note of the threats to WP:AN/I. As far as external reporting to police, there is a separate policy being drafted for that. Hopefully this will allay the fears you may have and allow you to support the proposed policy. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A completely separate policy about external reporting? For what possible reason? Avruch T 19:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I see that earlier today, someone came and marked it as a proposed guideline, and you have changed it back to a proposed policy. I have a problem with that. You see, in my mind, policies are things that are actionable. If someone adds POV information, it is removed; if they keep doing it, they can be blocked. If someone makes a clear personal attack, it can be removed and they can be blocked. If a reference is added to a non-reliable source, it can be removed, and potentially even added to the blacklist, and editors who repeatedly add non-reliable references may be blocked and will certainly be told to stop adding those references. But if someone fails to report having seen a threat of violence or self-harm, it is completely inappropriate to take any action against them. Therefore, this should not be a policy. It's time to rethink the premises on which this proposal is based. Risker (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that making this a policy is going too far - if someone sees a threat of some kind and doesn't report it to AN/I, what happens? Will they be warned, and then blocked if it happens again? Originally this proposal said that editors should report incidents to the appropriate authorities, didn't it? Now its just report it to AN/I. Somewhat regularly (although less in the past week) threats of this nature are reported and still ignored, and this policy doesn't offer direction on that. This just seems like overkill to address a problem that doesn't exist - is there some information suggesting that Wikipedia ignoring threats has led to violence or other harm in the past? Avruch T 19:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, to be utterly clear, this point of this proposed policy is not to require anyone to do anything. It is simply to codify that Wikipedia position on threats of violence is to take them seriously and not pass them off as hoaxes or jokes. Since we are not in the position of being able to judge appropriately if someone is joking when they say they will blow up a high school, this policy states that we take the threat as being serious. There actually has been a bit of debate on this and PM and I wrote this in order to help avoid a situation in the future where we might pass off as a joke an early warning for what might actually be the real thing. Bstone (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok - if its a position statement, and not prescriptive, then why is it a policy? Do we have "here is our position, now do what you want" policies on other topics? Maybe what you are looking for is an essay, but I gather that doesn't convey your intent to demonstrate the opinion of the community as a whole? Avruch T 20:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

rewrite

I just rewrote the proposed policy to be very specific. It now says nothing about reporting a threat but rather says only that all threats are taken seriously. Please discuss. Bstone (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Now it reads like a fork of WP:SUICIDE (see the "All threats are taken seriously" section, I think its called). Upgrading that to a policy would achieve what you appear to be trying to do here, but I think the reason it is an essay is that it is not prescriptive and there is no mechanism for dealing with those who disagree. Avruch T 20:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Too hard-line. I recently threatened to drop an anvil on someone's head in a humorous context -- under this policy, people would be required to take it seriously. --Carnildo (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say that your anvil comment didn't actually constitute a threat, carnildo, and wouldn't worry about it... To be really clear, from my perspective this policy is intended to encourage people to respond to comments like the pipe bomb threat just by letting the police know, rather than by talking about it on wiki noticeboards - that's where I see the usefulness.... Privatemusings (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

I did nominate this essay/policy proposal for deletion. My rationale is located at the page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Threats of violence. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a deletion discussion is actually probably quite a good way of getting some eyes over here, and as such support it! - will check it out and comment presently..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I do admire your attitude toward these things. :) I have a version in mind, if I can figure out how to write it, I'll do it (edit TOV) , and note here. Regardless of how I contribute to this, I do believe it is best not existing. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My rollback to prior version

No biggie, but I felt this version more clearly elucidates its purpose and usefulness - so that's why I popped it back! thoughts? - Privatemusings (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Case of internet death threats in the UK

This case from the BBC shows the UK police are interested in this sort of thing!(Hypnosadist) 07:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7297184.stm

  • Which brings up that old argument about WP being US focussed. The draft policy currently says that such a threat should be reported to the FBI - what happens then if the users are in another country? --Deadly∀ssassin 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Then put a link on there to a UK law enforcement website or phone number they can contact. Tiptoety talk 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

simplified version

I've rewritten a simplified version, that might be easier to find consensus on, if consensus can be found. Thoughts? NonvocalScream (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm - well, I see your point, and p'raps the reasons I think 'my' version was more useful go to the heart of the differences in our approaches.. I think the previous version was clear, and spelled out some useful information pretty quickly (I was particularly pleased with the idea of having a few ref.s for example!) - and I don't think you actually said you disagreed with any of it - if I'm right, you just feel it's redundant? Having seen discussions on this topic go round the houses a few times, I'd say that the policy as it stood before was probably the strongest net gain - whaddy'all reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I just rewrote it to be back to the intention of what PM and I originally brainstormed. This proposal was originally created to simply codify the position that Wikipedia takes all threats serious and then, in Wikipedia:TOV/External_reporting laying out the reporting procedure. Bstone (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've commented here yet. I object to this proposal. You ought not compel editors to report. We are all volunteers here on this project. It should not even be recommended what an editor should do. An editor reports because that editor feels the need to report, not because our project dictates it. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Objections and note lack of community support

  • I agree with NonvocalScream and register the same objection - I don't think this proposal is getting wide enough attention, given the scope it attempts. I also think you should attempt to get some basic agreement on this policy itself before you try to bridge it to a second policy (which would itself be invalidated by the rejection of this proposal). So far I've seen a couple or three editors who agree with the need and the language of this proposed policy, and that doesn't at all represent consensus. The first time this policy is ignored and one of you attempt to hold the person doing the ignoring to some sort of remedy, I think the house of cards here will blow down.
  • These questions haven't been answered:
1. What actual problem is this policy supposed to address, i.e. has not following this policy created an issue in the past?
2. What is the remedy implicit in this policy? Other policies are enforced by administrator action, do you propose to do that here?
3. What limits are there? Can you apply a block to someone in Australia who ignores a threat to a school in Texas, for instance?
4. What are you trying to achieve with this policy that is not achieved with WP:SUICIDE?
Even with answers to these questions, I'm not sure I can support this policy - and I don't think the general community will, either. The more strict it attempts to be (reporting requirements beyond AN/I, for instance) the more likely that it will immediately fail through lack of support. Avruch T 01:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I did make at note at VP:Proposals and the administrators noticeboard. I think these groups need included. I'm tempted to broadcast a neutral link to the mailing list and to #wikipedia-en, because I want the community to comment on this. If I do post to IRC and the mailing list, I'll make a note here. But I think the best thing here is to get more eyes on this. If it is workable, it will be worked. I'm not confident if it is, but I am only one editor. There are a great deal of editors out there, all with good ideas. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


Regarding the threat/trolling that Doc was asking people not to mention, it is in regards to ongoing fake suicide threats.

To the rest of your points:

  • 1. The proposal is meant to codify Wikipedia's official position that threats are to be taken serious and not passed off as jokes. As such it will avoid the unthinkable situation of a real early warning being passed off as a hoax or joke.
  • 2. This proposal is simply meant to codify a position. Perhaps it should be combined with TOV/External Reporting, but that depends on community support.
  • 3. There is no mandate of someone picking up a phone and calling the police. Rather it is voluntary. However, once a report has been made to AN/I it would be ill advised for the community to ignore a specific threat and simply pass it off as a cheap hoax.
  • 4. WP:SUICIDE is an essay. I am attempting to achieve a guideline or policy.

Bstone (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia state the projects official position that we are codifying? Also, by creating a policy, and using policy language in the way the proposal is using it, it makes a mandate. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Sorry, but I am unclear as to what you're asking. Bstone (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am referencing your assertion in your statement here where you say this is meant to codify Wikipedia's official position. I am asking you where the English Wikipedia states its official position on the matter, since you state the project has one. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have a codified opinion on the matter. Currently all threats of violence are interpreted on a case by case basis. The intention here is to codify the position that all threats are taken seriously and those threats which indicate specifics (mechanism, time, place, etc) should be reported to AN/I for follow up. Bstone (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
As above, and noting the position one editor has taken here on an (permalinked), I don't think we can call this a widely accepted position you propose. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It is certainly much too early to be calling for rejection of this proposal. It's undergone almost completely rewrite three times in the past 48 hours alone. More than that there are many editors which express great support for it. Let us give liberal amounts of time for discussion and allowing for a final draft of the proposal to be worked out. There is even a voice discussion about on Monday evening. See WP:NTWW for more info. Bstone (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) We can give time, that is ok. I do not see anything planned at NTTW for this, not for monday either. Know that if you have a voice discussion, it will not encompass the community's view on this, only the participants, and may not have a wide audience. Try to centralize all discussion on this talk page. Also, I don't think it is too early to reject this proposal at all, given the above points. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

At WP:NTWW under Topics "Threats of violence and suicide from IPs and registered users and how to respond, thoughts and experiences by Bstone (who is a National Registered Emergency Medical Technician in the US)". You also signed up to talk about TOV, perhaps as a counter-point? So I guess I'll see you there. I would highly suggest you don't add the rejected template. It's must too soon and would be very hasty. If nothing else the community has states in no uncertain terms that this proposal need a good, healthy discussion by the MfD which was closed via WP:SNOW. Moreover I am certain any "rejection" at this point would just be reverted when the policy is rewritten. Please- let's go nice and slow with this one. We're talking about potentially saving lives. Bstone (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to be there, but I don't expect that anything I say will have any bearing on the outcime of this discussion but I will opine on this.
I don't think anyone is interested in adding the {{rejected}} tag at this point. However, I am very sure that it will be added soon. This proposal does not appear to represent the position of the community given the above points. As an aside to that, I don't think the proposal does any good for the project. I empathize with those who are compassionate, at the same time, I realize that the English Wikipedia is not a E911 clearing house, and should not be. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
So if you came across a specific threat of violence against a high school which included a date, time and mechanism, how would you proceed? And assume for a moment that everyone passed it off as a joke, yet it was the real thing. What then? Is it not better to err on the side of caution? Better safe than sorry? The police say absolutely yes. The view of this uniformed public safety professional is an emphatic yes. Curious as to your response. Bstone (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Me... personally, I would locate a m:checkuser in the event of a user name to see if they were willing to release an IP where such limited release would be permitted in this linked section of the privacy policy for safety of users then I would contact my local law enforcement with the information I have (either the IP I garnered from CU, or the IP that posted).
Every editor is not me. I am not every editor. I don't expect the same from others


I will not however, expect or recommend what any other editor or user should or should not do. I don't know the consequences of asking someone to report something. In some localities, viewing wikipedia is wrong and can lead to consequences. Would I ask them to report? Would doing so endanger them? While I sympathize with the moralities and compassions here, this is not what the project is for, and I will not support that we should become a clearing house. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You do realize that this proposal in no way requires anyone to do anything? I have explained it several times now that this proposal is only an attempt to codify Wikipedia's position that all threats of violence are taken seriously. No further action is required. As such I am not sure what you disagreeing with- taking the threats seriously or something else? Bstone (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I disagree that we should be handling this on wiki at all. This is to include the "external reporting" board, which does require editors to report. revert ignore, if it is a policy. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:11 

16 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that all threats of violence should be taken seriously and I will kill everybody who dares to disagree with me. Uses common sense please. Andries (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Couple more points - I think it is inappropriate to invoke outside and unverified credentials, particularly credentials not really on point, as a part of this debate in an attempt to convince others to your point of view. I don't think this should have the rejected template yet either, although it seems inevitable, but I object to the characterization of the result of the MfD as any sort of support for this proposal itself. The simple fact is that proposals aren't deleted, they're rejected, and so the MfD was unlikely to have any other result regardless of the nature of the proposal.
  • Each time the reporting requirements are removed, they are before long put back in. I don't know that there is an "official Wikipedia position" that all threats are taken seriously (I'd imagine its more common for the opposite to occur) but even if consensus were to develop that threats should be taken seriously, I don't see the object of a policy saying such. The use of "guideline" has been rejected, there is already an essay, so can you explain why a policy is necessary? Has there ever been a single case of an ignored or passed off threat where something bad happened? (Might be hard to find, if it was ignored without being reported to a noticeboard, but a fair number are reported to a noticeboard and still ignored). I've asked this question a few different ways in more than one forum, and have yet to receive a direct response. Avruch T 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Balance between the pages... another tuppence....

Hi folks - I've popped back the general information into the proposal page for now, because I do find particularly the ref.s to be quite useful - and I don't think many will disagree with any of the current wording (we'll see!) - I've preserved the link to the 'codification' page, and we can focus more specific systems suggestions / procedures and ideas for how to best follow up / manage such reporting there - but I would hope that this page as it is now makes sense, and is pretty clear.... whaddya reckon? - Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think seesawing back and forth between versions is really a good idea. When you and Bstone revert to an earlier version "to reflect original intentions" there is a problem with not taking into account the views of other editors. I disagree, and others have as well, with the "should report to the authorities" aspect, and the fact that you are seeking a policy here when an essay with community consensus seems to be what you want. Its a problem in my view that the two of you are talking past, rather than with, the folks who are objecting. Avruch T 16:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree as aboce, but kudos for the talking. Discussion is good, however, I don't feel my issues were addressed. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Guideline?

Was thinking about this last night. It seems clear there is a lack of consensus for making even the position that "threats of violence are taken seriously" as a policy. Furthermore any reporting requirement is being rejected as well. So perhaps we downgrade this to a guideline then? Combine TOV/External Reporting into here and roll it up into a guideline which says it's highly suggested to take all threats serious and if you're so inclined please report it to AN/I. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That I could probably agree with, although I'd question why we couldn't just make WP:SUICIDE a guideline instead of an essay. Avruch T 20:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I still believe this should have no guideline or policy status to it. It should be up to the editor, own their own, to report. There should be no recommendation, suggestion, or otherwise as to what a volunteer editor does on the outside, and to an extension, whether the editor takes threats serious or not. We should not be guiding editors in this manner. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there would be sufficient community consensus for making this a guideline. As for WP:SUICIDE, i think it would be appropriate to revisit that essay and perhaps incorporate it into this one. As long as there is agreement for this sort of thing being a guideline the rest is just paper work and working out the particulars. Bstone (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked, I don't see the consensus. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anyone named conensus either. I do think that consensus can be reached, however, with further discussion. Avruch seems to agree with this becoming a guideline. You seem to be the only one outspoken against it. Bstone (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason I strongly support a slow approach, with minimal process recommendations at this stage, is because I believe there is support for this proposal, as written, to become policy. The reason I believe this is that I'm not sure that anyone actually disagrees with any of the points expressed in the policy (please do go ahead and point out something in there that you think is silly, or inaccurate!) - I believe this could be a useful policy, and might, over time, gain consensus - could we avoid discussion of 'promotion' or these writings ultimate destination as policy / guideline / essay for a moment and address the content for a while.... I'm not understanding that there are any objections on that level out there at all... are there? thanks (for being patient with me, if nothing else!) - Privatemusings (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read the above page. Your belief that there are no objections is... strange. Avruch T 12:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rejected

I wish their were a better tag, but we only have this one, and I have no other ideas. I'm biased, so revert me if I've made a mistake. However, the entire talk page here shows two well intentioned editors doing the right thing here. I know both of them have the project at heart, and I applaud bstone and pm. However, this entire talk page, shows many objections, and there is not any consensus. Also, it appears unlikely their will be one soon. I've applied the rejected tag as such. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been rejected. Just a few hours ago one of the editors, Avruch, stated he would be willing to support this as a guideline. The trend is clear that there is continuing support and lots more discussion is needed. Please do not unilaterally add a rejected tag as it's not helpful. Bstone (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think one editor makes consensus. Read the talk page here. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's do some simple math, shall we? Private Musings supports this, BStone (that's me, I wave...hi mom!!) supports this and finally Avruch has recently said he'd support some incarnation of this as a guideline, Jac16888 has stated he support this, so does Aleta, Ed Fitzgerald did as well, Ronnotel even suggested starting WP:TOV/External Reporting (which you also added a rejection tag to, without consensus). Compwhizii on the AfD also said it should be policy. So that's 8 editors that I counted on this talk page and AfD who said this should be policy. The only one here fighting for rejection, Scream, seems to be you.Bstone (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I may not be "fighting", but I urge rejection. The fact that some people support this doesn't outweight the fact that the community seems not to support this. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
How might you know this? Bstone (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think rejected may be premature. There are clearly cases where editors and administrators could find a page like this useful. I think actionable is the key word here. If the nature of the threat is such that some action can be taken, then we should have a guideline that helps define what can and should be done. Case in point, an anonymous IP that traces back to a school defaces that school's article with a threat such as 'all the rich snots are going to die tomorrow'. Any one who reads the news can agree that the school's administration should be notified about this situation. The information is actionable, the likelihood that the threat is real is not negligible and the worst case scenario is pretty darn bad. I would support a narrow guideline that addresses these situations. I.e. the threat must be actionable, there is reason to believe it may be real, and the consequences of the threatened activity are grave. I have a hard time understanding what would be harmful about such a guideline. Ronnotel (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is useful and an excellent idea. Let's begin to discuss it below in a new section. Bstone (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Three point test

Further to my above comment, I would like to propose the following test to be incorporated into this guideline: Actionable, Valid, Grave:

  • Actionable - the nature of the threat must permit some reasonable action on the part of the user. There is a specificity to the threat that narrows the appropriate response to concrete action.
  • Valid - there is at least some basis for believing the threat may be real.
  • Grave - the worst likely outcome of the threat are grave

I submit that threats of this nature cannot, in good conscience, be safely ignored. Ronnotel (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We should not assume any editor is qualified to assess threats. This is not the job of a volunteer editor on this project. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Likewise, we must not assume that an editor or admin will not want to act in the capacity of Good Samaritan. In the case they do, there should be a guideline - not a policy - that can facilitate any decision they need to make in a difficult situation. Ronnotel (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Editors should not be making these difficult decisions. If they do, the English Wikipedia ought not guide them. What they do, they do on their own. As an aside, does every locality and jurisdiction have a good Samaritan law? somethings to consider. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
WP seems an odd community to be arguing for an objectivist perspective of user behavior. Just sayin'. Ronnotel (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Editors have to make decisions about whether or not to report a threat. People will make threats, and editors will see them. If you choose to ignore it, you've made a decision. If you choose not to ignore it, you've made a decision. There is no not making a decision. Aleta Sing 17:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree, and I would add that we should not guide that decision. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Funny you should say that, I think Jimbo is a confirmed follower of objectivist philosophy - and has based much of his work and invention (including Wikipedia) around Ayn Rand's work. Avruch T 18:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The police and EMS professionals have already opined that threats should always be taken seriously. When they have a time, date and/or mechanism they should be given special consideration. A guideline stating it is suggested an editor takes a threat seriously and threats with specifics even more seriously is a perfectly appropriate thing to do and indeed is suggested and recommended by police and EMS professionals. Like it or not, Wikipedia has become more than just an encylopedic project in this regard. People have and will use it as a manifesto for their suicidal and homicidal behavior. As such it is incumbent upon us to draft a guideline which will provide a mechanism in which one can follow and invoke when a specific threat has been made. Bstone (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard any objection that relates to this test - just whether there should be a guideline in the first place. On that basis I am tentatively adding it to the text. Ronnotel (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your new section would seem to conflict directly with the section above it - from any way, shape or form... to a three point test to determine if a threat is actionable. Avruch T 18:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it would. I therefore further propose to modify the guideline to conform to the criteria. Objections? Ronnotel (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have objections. You are adding the seive and it is a direct guidance to a volunteer editor on what to consider. This is not the volunteer editors job. Not a policy, and not a guideline should this be. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, but from your perspective the sieve makes the guideline less objectionable. Or are you objecting on the basis that this change makes the policy more palatable and therefore more viable? Ronnotel (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not filibustering, if that's what your getting at. I object to the adding of *more* guidance, note that I object to use giving any guidance. As my points above have made that abundantly clear. See my note directly below. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thinking purely abstract here, it may be reasonable to say that a general, unspecific threat would be difficult to act upon. Therefore it would be overwhelmingly difficult to write a guideline of suggestions on how to respond to it. However, a threat which contains specifics- date, time, mechanism- has enough specifics to perk great interest and concern for a person or place and a specific time or mechanism of attack. As such, it is much easier to write a guideline suggesting how one might respond to a threat. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a suggested re write. this version where there is no specific guidance given to any volunteer. However, the message is clear. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That version seem to be very bare bones and does not assist someone who may have just come across an explicit threat of violence. Not even a suggestion to report it to AN/I. If AN/I was at least added on to it and you would agree with that version as a guideline then I think it would be a good common ground. What do you think? Bstone (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not the projects place to assist in this manner. I don't think we should be making any recommendations. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
According to you. I assert that the project has grown and thus is must rise to meet the very real possibility that people will use it as a place to publish their homicidal early warnings. So, what say you about the above? Bstone (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This is not "Wikipedia, the 911 advice clearinghouse". NonvocalScream (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Your opposition has been duly noted. Bstone (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

3rd party threats?

Is this supposed to be about when editor X threatens real person Y who is not a Wikipedia editor? Because if X threatens a Wikipedia editor, I see no reason why the community needs to be responsible for reporting anything, surely the target can report the incident to any authorities they feel are appropriate. Mangojuicetalk 18:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this seems appropriate. Bstone (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I think this is more for situations where user X is threating an outside party (such as a school, public official, or themselves). There is really no way for user X to find where user Y lives or is located. Tiptoety talk 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Bstone (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Failing for same reason that the two older Suicide policies failed

This is failing to generate consensus for the same reason that the two prior "threats of suicide" policy attempts (prior to the current essay) failed - we don't have a working consensus on a prescriptive policy, in part because it's very hard to prescribe response behavior for arbitrary situations without causing negative side effects.

Bstone, please go read the policy histories on those (linked off the WP:SUICIDE page) for some history. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

GWH, just because it failed in the past does not mean it needs to fail again. We have at least 8 editors who have opined this is a good guideline to have and only a few who are against it. I feel with more discussion and mucking through the particulars we can come to a consensus. I do not believe this will be quick or we should be rash and expect this to fail. Bstone (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, this is failing to achieve consensus. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Bstone, I urge you to go look at the historical attempts that preceded this - I think that this is likely to frustrate you, and those examples (and what's happening here so far) show why. I'm not saying that because I want it to fail... If we could make a formal policy I think it would be worthwhile. I just think it's going to fail based on the history (of the others, and what's happening here). I think that looking at those two examples may help you be aware of how deep the problems are here and put it into context. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That does not mean we can not try and fix those problems. Tiptoety talk 04:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure. But this proposal is walking right down the same road as those did... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a basic objection to any policy that codifies courses of action on-Wiki as a result of off-Wiki events. That having been said, I am more favourable towards a simple essay like this as a guideline, than I was the previous (failed) attempts mentioned above. I don't think this will ever be policy. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 05:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It is clear a policy will not succeed. However a guideline seems to have good consensus. Bstone (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anything's clear just yet! - I totally agree there's not the support for it at the moment... (and I personally don't really agree with the recent addition 100%) - but there's no rush... I still see the use of such a policy, indeed I think it's a good idea! It'll take a bit more time to tell, I'd say (nothing wrong with something being a proposal for quite a while, is there!) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is running into the same problem as before; No-ones dead yet! just like BLP this will not be taken seriously until this is all over the media. (Hypnosadist) 09:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

But do we want to be scrambling to solve that type of issue when one arises, or deal with it now it insure it does not arise in the first place? Tiptoety talk 14:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is all losing sight of the goal here. It is going to increase our exposure (liability). It feeds the trolls by granting recognition. No one here is credentialed to be an expert on the subject, or to dispense medical, and or criminal advice. This is really not the best idea. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

But does a wikipedia policy really have precedent over someones life? And I think a visit from law enforcement may not deny them recognition, but let them know we are not fooling around here and will most likely make them stop a lot more than WP:DENY will. Tiptoety talk 18:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You're much too concerned with trolling while we're concerned with possibly saving a life, protecting people, etc. It simply seems that your concerns, while valid, are outweighed. As far as credentials, I hold professional public safety credentials as an EMT, FEMA credentials and have law enforcement backround- so yes, I can offer advice here. And I am. Bstone (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Same here, I work in the law enforcement field myself, as well as for a county search and rescue agency. I do not think not having an expert in the field should matter anyways. Tiptoety talk 18:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
None taken, and I see where you are coming from. I guess my point is that any law enforcement agency/official is going to tell you the same thing. Report crime, notify the police of life threating situations whether they are on the internet or not. Tiptoety talk 18:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • My credentials and many years of experience have given me thousands of direct patient experiences where they have been suicidal or homicidal. I have specific training in these areas. As such I opine and offer my opinion that there must be a guideline that all threats me taken seriously and how to go about reporting them. Bstone (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And that, of course, is your opinion. You go to a doctor and seek their opinion when ill. You seek out an accountant's opinion when doing complex taxes. Logically, someone who has years of experience, training and professional experience (not to mention a uniform and badge) often has slightly more insight into how to deal with threats of violence, including suicide and homicide, than those who do not. Bstone (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Logically, you are correct - flip side is that we have no way of verifying your credentials, or of verifying that the credentials you claim impact on this topic. Ever since the Essjay issue, as I'm sure you know, the idea of using real world credentials to back an opinion in Wikipedia has fallen out of favor. Avruch T 21:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, EXACTLY. When you're sick, you go to a DOCTOR, not to some anonymous schlub on the internet. RL health, safety and emergency credentials mean exactly NOTHING on the internet. Absolutely, exactly, nothing. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to scan in and send you a copy of my credentials. They are current and valid. Bstone (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
We do not use our credentials in policy or content disputes. In the content area, we even require bona fide experts to cite sources. You can't use your credentials to give yourself more weight in this forum. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
But it still doesn't mean anything, sorry. Credentials can be authenticated, but there's no way to know from post to post if the same person is posting, even under the same ID, and just faxing the credentials doesn't prove that they're yours. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 22:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I will do whatever you desire from me in order to authenticate my credentials. I have been active on this Wiki project for a few years now, so it's not like I am a newcomer freshly claiming expertise in an area. I will be happy to post a picture of me in uniform on my user page, send you my National Registry certification number which you can check every now and then to make sure I am still certified and I will set up the Committed Identity for my user page. We can even call each other on the phone to make a special code which will never be posted or written in order to make absolutely certain that I am who I say I am. Ok? Bstone (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
One more time, we do not use our credentials in policy or content disputes. They mean nothing. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the references portion of the proposal? Yes, it was just a simple oversight. The police has already stated how we should proceed. So- what's the hold up? Bstone (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The lack of consensus support. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
More people approve than disapprove. Thus there is consensus. Bstone (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
No. That's a vote. Consensus is different. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have read it. There is bound to be dissent. You seem to be mostly it. Bstone (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
No, NonvocalScream is not the only dissenter. Many of us have made our position known but have chosen to disengage; we've been around enough policy discussions to know this isn't going to get sufficient community support to be "proclaimed". Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm is quite sufficient; it does not need to be changed into a guideline or policy, and it is better written and more informative than this current wording. Risker (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This situation is entirely why WP:SUICIDE (mutated to Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm was made an essay. It's harder to argue about it, as it's a "best practice" rather than a prescriptive policy, whose authors credentials are subject to question or dispute, etc.
Note that regardless of what happens here, that will remain... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That actually brings up another concern I have about these kinds of essays - maybe resurrected from concerns about the previous ones, I don't remember. To have a policy such as this is actually to imbue WP with a degree of authority over these types of situations that WE DON'T HAVE. It's kind of like if I am walking by a building at 456 Front Street and I see graffiti sprayed on the building saying "I live at 123 Front Street and I'm gonna kill myself!", and I go and notify the building where the graffiti was sprayed about the emergency, because I know about their wonderful emergency policy. But do they really have ownership or protectorship of the emergency, just because it was their building? They might think they do, they might want to, but no, they really don't. All they'd be doing, if they're wise, is notifying the authorities, which is just an extra level of bureaucracy and time wasted. And even if they end up telling me to notify the authorities, is it actually their place to do so? They're the bosses of the building, but they're not the arbiters of actions not relating to them in any way other than via vandalism of their property. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It's been considered a best practice to report to authorities, as we don't have the sort of judgement or skills to assess the seriousness of a situation. Really silly cases maybe not, but other than that... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
So then tell me, GWH, why you think there is such a nay-saying trend among certain editors? Their concerns seem purely tendentious or so low priority that I am having great difficult understanding why they cling to them. A simple guideline with suggestions on how to respond seems utterly and perfectly reasonable. Your thoughts? Bstone (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
A simple essay with suggestions on how to respond is what we already have, and was not controversial in any significant way. The areas you have sought to go beyond it are causing the problems. They're the same problems that came up last 2 times that a formal policy was attempted. They're exactly the reason that the essay exists, and why it's intentionally limited to being an essay and not being prescriptive on behavior.
I'm not trying to be negative. I take this problem seriously. But I also take the WP volunteer and consensus processes seriously. This topic has proven ill-suited to consensus in the past. I spent some time figuring out how to do the essay to stick it into existence in a non-controversial manner, and recommend the stuff which you're trying to prescribe. The essay worked. As with previous attempts, the prescriptive instructions aren't working with the consensus process...
I think that you've taken the hard road in several instances here, from trying to re-write what the essay covers noncontroversially from scratch (which you're free to do, but then faces criticism and pushback) to the attempt to prescribe behavior that is a really hard problem to define adequately. I am not trying to obstruct you, but I think you're making a terrible mistake with the community and are going to come to regret it. I think that the community is better served by working with the Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm / WP:SUICIDE essay, in terms of promoting its use more consistently and widely. I believe that doing so will reduce the controversy level to acceptably low levels. But that's just my opinion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Tendentious and low priority? Have you seen this and this? Why derail a discussion? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You did not leave room for assumption here. When you accuse folks of tendentious concerns [edits?] and call their opinions "low priority", you are very clear. The statement was very clear. You don't have to respond by echoing me. Just read the policy(s) I linked. If you have forgotten, I've payed you respect, and perhaps a compliment or two on this talk page. I'm assuming good faith, and I'm keeping it civil. I'm asking you to do the same. Keep it real. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


I guess I do not see the negative impact of this kind of policy, what harm is it to report a violation of the law, or a death/suicide threat to the police? We do it most of the time already, and from personally doing it myself before have come to find police are very appreciative and I have actually had a person of interest arrested because of my report. Who knows what happens to the other incidents that go un-reported. Tiptoety talk 04:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
We ought not be prescribing off wiki behavior in this manner. I believe it adds to our exposure to guide a volunteer editor to report, or not report. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
In your opinion, which has been duly noted. Of course the police and public safety officials have noted their contrary opinions. Bstone (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
They don't run the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So you feel a person who may do harm to themselves or others should just be allowed to, and we should just look the other way? Tiptoety talk 04:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel that an editor should be guided by his or her own in this. I have boldly made this edit that was apparently not useful. I considered redirecting the policy proposal to WP:COMMON, but that would be wrong. All we need here is common sense, and its safe that way. Use common sense. We don't need this as a policy or guideline. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a moral and ethical responsibility to assist when you see someone who is injured or about to injure someone. If you see or hear someone plotting to murder students in a school then you have a moral and ethical responsibility to report it to the authorities. A simple guideline here would assist one who wanted to follow those responsibilities as how to appropriately report it. Not having it might lead to all sorts of confusion and possibly a missed opportunity. If the worst happens I sincerely doubt, Scream, you would be as vocally against this effort. Bstone (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


I don't really have anything new to bring to the table. I think I'm going to disengage this one. I wish everyone the best of luck on this proposal. If I have something else, I'll post here at the talk. Thank you for taking the time to discuss my still present concerns with me. Best regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for talking! Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the conversation! Bstone (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of credentials, while mostly inactive, Jimbo has set up a credential verification process here. I am going to go through it. Bstone (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to relate that in the context of this discussion, it won't change the weight of anyone's arguments, for better or worse. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
One of the arguments brought up was that my credentials couldn't be verified. Once I get verified it will be a matter of convincing those that believe credentials and specific training in the exact area of this discussion are not meaningful enough to have weighted opinions. Bstone (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Simplified version

What is wrong with this version? NonvocalScream (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not much that I can see. It would probably get policycruft attached back to it fairly quickly, though – but that's not a problem with the text of the version you linked. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps. It is simple, it is sweet. There is no guidance as far as how to report, thus the English Wikipedia takes no risk for this. Where as if Wikipedia guides offline action in this manner, someone somewhere may risk something in order to externally report. This simplified version only states current practice. By being prescriptive, we take exposure. Something this project should not do. I fear the consequences of compelling, or advising someone to report or not report anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NonvocalScream (talk • contribs) 13:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so we are clear

There is considerable, broadly based opposition to this proposal being accepted as either policy or guideline. The majority of the editors who have opposed this proposal being formally adopted have consciously decided to disengage. That does not mean we aren't watching. The absence of constant debate on this topic does not mean that people have changed their minds. I hope nobody gets the idea that, because there are no ongoing debates, all opposition has been quelled. There are plenty of people who have watchlisted this proposal and will be willing to revert any attempt to change the template from "proposed" to "official". I respect the intentions of the authors and supporters of this proposal, and trust they will respect the fact that consensus to make this an official policy or guideline has not been achieved. Risker (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

G'day Risker - and thanks for your note - I've only sniffed around a little about where / if this might have have been discussed (probably to death! - or is that a terrible comment in context?!) - and have taken a look at WP:FIRE and WP:VIOLENCE - the later having numerous shortcuts, and currently lives under 'Responding to threats of harm', so as I mentioned above, there is clearly redundancy.

Whilst absolutely respecting your desire to disengage (and I've been more 'back seat' on this one, than elsewhere... maybe I'm learning!) - I thought I'd just say that I quite like this version and offer these thought as to why a policy, and not an essay might be a good idea;

  • Folk keeping popping up on various noticeboards and asking for guidance about 'what they should do' - I consider the spirit of the enquiries I've seen to me synonymous with 'what's the policy'
  • I would be happy for the answer to be here it is - and leave it at that (report, revert, ignore etc.)

This may be a bad attempt at sidestepping some important issues of moral and ethic obligation, and the role of a website within that - but I'm not entirely clear about the down sides of the version I've linked to above, and can see some benefits!

To respond to your point directly - it's clear to me that this doesn't become 'policy' at the point someone flips a tag around - that will only come through significant additional input (and support!) - and if I could tempt you to have a chat about any of my points, then I'd be very happy!

ps. I've been wanting to ask for ages and ages, and while we're here - does your username relate to Risk or perhaps Risk? cheers! - Privatemusings (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


pps. just read through the version linked to above, and I probably would substitute 'should' for 'please consider'.. so yup - work to be done... but you get the idea! - Privatemusings (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Downsides, and why not a policy

A couple people have said there are no downsides to this policy, and I respectfully disagree. Additionally, I think there are other reasons why this should not be a policy - but could perhaps survive as a guideline, maybe as content merged into WP:SUICIDE.

  • The proposal, as variously written, often prescribes a bright line "Report all threats" - which is clearly not necessary, and brings undue attention to what are of course attention-seeking disruptive actions.
  • There is no conceivable mechanism for enforcing this as a policy - unenforceable policies don't belong as policies.
  • Even editors willing to report to AN/I may be unwilling to make a report to the authorities. Minors, folks on different continents, etc. There are any number of reasons someone may not wish to become involved in official activity of that sort, and policy should not require them to.
  • It prescribes an activity that has been described as a moral or ethical obligation, which is something that most of our policies do not do. This is more of a general objection that applies to all policies that do not directly impact on the encyclopedia (either by improving content, processes, interactions in the community, etc.) Essentially you are imposing an external value through an internal process that requires an external action that does not appreciably contribute to the goal of "sum of all human knowledge, free and available for everyone."


Hope that makes sense, and at least partly answers Privatemusing comments about not seeing a serious objection or any downside. Avruch T 15:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is an instance of alarmism that would only make sense in the context of the CYA mentality of a bureaucracy. It reminds me of the obsession in British nurseries about protecting children against hypothetical abductions, while the quality of childcare seems to be below the European average.
Some of those people who are now going around accusing others of violating AGF and CIV (these rules are there to be followed, not to be used as weapons against others who really or supposedly don't!) would soon start RFCs on admins for not having reacted to a "credible" threat. And of course there is an enormous BEANS potential here. I prefer not to go into the details, but I can see some very promising methods for harrassing fellow editors in a much more effective way than is currently possible. What if one of the victims of such harrassment commits suicide before the first life is saved by this new policy? No, I don't think it would happen. I am not that alarmist. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion and consensus.

The discussion appears to have died down. Consensus is not here, and it appears unlikely to form, no matter how much discussion is here. The proposal, appears rejected. NonvocalScream (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree, to my disliking of course. Tiptoety talk 14:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, tho I am currently traveling and in a place with very limited internet connection. As such I may be very inactive. However, my inactivity should not be construed as acceptance of the minority opinion that this proposal is rejected. Bstone (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm...well that may be true, but really this whole consensus building/discussion process is going now where. Tiptoety talk 19:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A "second set of eyes"

Here only by following the link from WP:AN, I've just read the current version of the policy, and this discussion page from top to bottom. The problem you seem to have here is certainly not a shortage of good ideas. If anything, you have too many proposals floating around. Each has its merits, and yet each has valid opposition from members of the community. It is notable that, while the voice of support remains consistent throughout, those opposing the proposed policy in its various manifestations changes over time down the page.

Bstone, it is clear that your experience in this field gives you great enthusiasm to bring this proposal forward, and you are undoubtedly correct in your (and the policy's) assessment of prevailing recommendations from the authorities. However, the editors who referenced the Essjay controversy are entirely correct: our real-life credentials are useful to us on Wikipedia only to the extent that they give us increased knowledge and skills in editing pages. I'm not sure which former ArbCom member was a lawyer, but they were not appointed because of their legal skills, despite the clear advantage that would give them in the legal-esque proceedings of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Similarly, many of our articles, particularly on more obscure topics, are written almost entirely by academics, experts in their fields whose knowledge of the topic far outstrips that of the internet at large. Yet the rules of No original research and Verifiability are not waived, because the encyclopedia has to stand independently of its authors, on its own merits. Similarly, a proposed policy such as this must stand independently of its authors, however knowledgeable they may be, and be accepted by the community at large, regardless of the soundness of its advice or your own experience.

My interpretation of the discussion above is that there is no consensus to adopt any of the revisions discussed to the status of policy or guideline. In the case of policy discussion, WP:SILENCE should be taken with reasonable caution; it generally applies more to proposals which generate no discussion at all. Here, there has been plenty, and it does not abound with "support" !votes. Certainly to reach policy status, a proposal should have "consensus" to the extent that there is both significant support, and insignificant opposition. Even the numbers that have been quoted above (somewhere along the lines of 8 in favour and 2 or 3 in opposition) do not lend themselves to declaring a 'consensus'. In reality, I interpret the fairly steady trickle of dissenters, compared to a handful of stalwart supporters, as evidence of an even lower standard of community support. It is notable, however, that many of the dissenters objected only to its codification as a policy - few voiced opposition to the actual advice included, which many noted as being eminently sensible.

My conclusion, from reading the discussion above and the policy proposal, is that there is no consensus to elevate this proposal, or any previous version of it, to policy or guideline status, and that the community is unlikely to form such a consensus at this time. While the majority seem to recognise that the advice contained in this proposal is sound and should generally be followed, they resist its codification as a policy. It seems that, along with Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals and Wikipedia:Helping suicidal individuals, Wikipedia has gained another useful essay on this topic. Happy‑melon 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Whose responsibility to report?

Who responsibility is it to make the report to the authorities? Larry E. Jordan (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No one specificaly, it just states that threats must be reported, and it does not matter by whom. Tiptoety talk 23:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This should be a guideline, not policy

Just for the record, "what to do in case of X" should not be a policy unless there is some means of enforcing it. As written, this instructs people what they should do off-wiki: Namely, call the authorities. There is no means of enforcing this, therefore, it should not be a policy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is appropriate. Bstone (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

a few responses;

work in this area clearly suffers from covering (and re-covering, and re-covering...) old ground - and there's certainly quite alot of talking past each other, I reckon.... I found Avruch's comments above very useful - and thought I'd respond to them a bit here;

  • The proposal, as variously written, often prescribes a bright line "Report all threats" - which is clearly not necessary, and brings undue attention to what are of course attention-seeking disruptive actions. - the clearest response to this is the advice from the various authorities currently ref.ed - basically that they appreciate their time being wasted if anyone has any concern whatsoever - it is this somewhat counter intuitive position that I think a policy like this might help to communicate. If anyone's thinking 'oh this is probably silly, I don't want to bring it undue attention' - then they most certainly should in fact report the matter - the devil is in the detail of the 'probably' - the lack of certainty renders the 'best practice' course of action clear, I reckon - kick it to someone who can deal with it...
  • There is no conceivable mechanism for enforcing this as a policy - unenforceable policies don't belong as policies. - I'm not sure that that's really the case - policy just means - you know, policy - it's not 100% vital, in my view, to consider enforcement in the conceptual framework of a policy (we have policy on blocking, for example, despite allowing anonymous editing)
  • Even editors willing to report to AN/I may be unwilling to make a report to the authorities. Minors, folks on different continents, etc. There are any number of reasons someone may not wish to become involved in official activity of that sort, and policy should not require them to. - I think this relates partly to the last point - but also , I'd add that a wiki policy will never really be able to require anything except in and of itself - further : the language I prefer is intended to be essentially advisory - though clear.

.. that's all for now.. but p'raps more to come..... Privatemusings (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is about the effectiveness of "reporting all threats". I don't buy it. It's a tradeoff between two kinds of errors: Reporting harmless cases, and not reporting serious cases. By telling people to report everything that fits into a certain pattern even when they think it's harmless, you can create extreme amounts of disruption for very little potential benefit. See Bruce Schneier's essay The War on the Unexpected for a discussion of this problem in a slightly different context.
Your second and third points address an argument that is indeed rather weak when compared with the strong ethical motivation that supporters of such a policy naturally feel, and also when compared with the disruption that such a policy is likely to cause. But it is still true that Wikipedia doesn't need policies telling editors to use their common sense, not to kill their spouses, or to eat, drink and breathe regularly.
If we are serious about the impact of Wikipedia on people's real life, then we should think about ways of making the spurious threats of violence even rarer than they already are, so that any serious threats are taken more seriously. Little used policies for extremely special cases are counterproductive, because they detract from our core rules such as WP:AGF that try to achieve a social climate in which the number of conflicts, and the number of trolls we produce, is kept as low as possible.
Wouldn't it make much more sense to think about establishing a closed mailing list in which real-life psychologists, checkusers and real-life police members can bring in their special knowledge and react quickly and professionally to suspicious threats of violence? --Hans Adler (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I am curious how you respond to the references, police officers and other public safety professionals who say to report threats, all the time, better safe than sorry? Bstone (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for Hans, but I keep my peace and hope they don't get their wish. I'm guessing police use words like this because they think their non-report rate is higher than their false-positive rate, and they want to reduce the non-report rate even if it means a small increase in their false-positive rate. If enough people took them literally and they got flooded with false positives, they would soon realize the foolishness of using such words in front of people who will blindly obey police instructions, and change their advice.
You see this a lot with child- and elder-abuse as well as other high-profile crimes that are perceived to be underreported. The police would rather get 100% more calls even if 90% of the additional calls are unsubstantiated. What they do not want, and thanks to citizens who actually think before calling the police, they will not get, is a 1000% increase in calls where 98% of the calls are well-intentioned but unsubstantiated.
If I did the numbers right, in the first case you will spend X amount of effort uncovering Y new crimes, and in the 2nd case you will spend 10X of that effort uncovering 2Y new crimes. The first is inefficient but possibly acceptable. The 2nd is basically a waste of time and resources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the police mean what they say? (Hypnosadist) 00:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to echo Adler here, as to Wikipedia really has no place governing or even guiding off wiki behavior, not like this, not in this manner. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


The other reason they say "Report everything, no matter how small" is because they can't really say anything else. Enormous liability would attach if the police were to say "Only report serious threats" and then have a threat thought not serious turn out to be quite serious in fact. Avruch T 19:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the threat of lawsuits or egg on their face, rather than common sense, is controlling what they say? You make it sound like the police spokeperson's mouth is "pwned" by the plaintiff's bar. Is that about right? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there even a question? Of course the liability involved dictates to a large extent what they say and don't say, do and refuse to do. The same is true in everything from teaching middle school math to practicing medicine. Avruch T 02:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Threats_of_violence/Archive_1&oldid=1140397036"