Wikipedia talk:School threats

Discussion

Proposal created by Avruch and Bstone, who chat together in #wikipedia-en. Bstone (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How is this any different from WP:TOV and why would you possibly think re-wording things would give this the slightest chance of succeeding where TOV failed? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In my mind at least, the imperative to report all threats of violence is totally different than the moral and political imperative to report specific threats against schools. I disagreed strongly with the TOV policy, but this is one I can get behind. Others may have the same view. Avruch ^T 01:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

By all means, have this as an essay - if you personally see a school threat, report it, but don't make people respect this as a guideline. Users who feel there's a threat should use their initive and report themselves - they don't need other people to do it. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Having this as policy, or even a guideline, just encourages it. Read WP:DENY, please - if something comes up, and you really believe it needs to be reported, you should know how to search for the local police department and call it in yourself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a good argument, one which I've made in response to TOV, but I think that there is value to a guideline or policy encouraging editors to make that step even so. We can't and shouldn't require anyone to do anything off-wiki - but encouraging it, particularly when it is an issue of such publicity and public sentiment, doesn't hurt anyone. I haven't seen anyone suggest, so far, that threats to specific schools should be ignored like other disruptive vandalism - is that your position? Avruch ^T 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Most threats made on Wikipedia are incredibly vague or obviously non-sensical and just plain stupid. Yes, those that are rather specific (such as the recent Glen A. Wilson High School incident) should be dealt with; however about 95% of those aren't, and would be best dealt with by simply following WP:RBI. Even for those that do get reported to law enforcement, there is no need whatsoever to drag it all over ANI - doing so only makes things more public, more problematic, and is nothing but over-reaction. Anyone seeing threats can revert the article, block the user, contact law enforcement, and delete or oversight the threats once the police is done with them. It's called common sense. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is one of those things where it is up to the user in question. Having this as policy or a guideline will probably result in a few too many confused counter-vandalism patrollers not knowing whether they should or shouldn't post it on ANI / contact law enforcement posting on ANI and asking whether or not they should. Having a blanket policy is inane and would result in far too much work on the part of administrators and counter-vandals. It should up to the person, with general guidelines written in an essay, whether or not they should report threats to the relevant authorities; it should also be made absolutely clear that we aren't forcing anyone to do anything off-wiki, and that nothing will be done against those who err on the side of discretion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And why is a threat against a school / student any different from the threat against, e.g. a government building, or government official that it needs a specific guideline? Arnoutf (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably school shooting hysteria. PROTECT TEH CHILDRENZ!!!11!! Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions

What about sanctions against those that knew or should have known of a threat, but does not report it? JeanLatore (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no. Avruch ^T 01:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How would we ever prove that someone knew of a threat? Nakon 01:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. No. Bstone (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Terrible idea. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Euh no, impossible. Taking that to extreme would mean an editor should report a threat to a Chinese school to the local police in let's say Beijing (who might only understand Chinese); and failing to do so may lead to the editor being sanctioned....... Arnoutf (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes but how you would enforce a policy that has no sanctions for violating it? JeanLatore (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This would never be policy. At worst, this would be a guideline. It'll probably end up an essay. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why a policy?

While this seems to me to be common sense, I don't think it's a terribly wise idea to try and make it a policy or guideline, inasmuch as our policies and guidelines cannot effectively regulate off-wiki behavior and should not purport to do so. I certainly have no trouble with such being written as an essay, as the suggestions are certainly valid, but it's simply not a workable guideline. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think guideline is the most appropriate thing. Bstone (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this whole thing should be stricken, forgotten about, dropped. Why attempt to have MORE regulation or even the suggestion of what should and should not be done on here. Just let us edit, man! JeanLatore (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. If this exists at all, it should be as an essay, and not tossed around as though it is policy, or even a guideline. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think an essay would be fine, that will allow people who are honestly worried about threats they observe some help how they can deal with it. Guideline or policy is probably too much. Arnoutf (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I believe there should be a guideline to this extent is Wikipedia is in the real world and we must remember that Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. It is very possible that one day a wacko will use Wikipedia to post a manifesto of homicide against a school. Thinking just for a moment of all the horrific school violence which has occurred- and in some cases the warning signs being ignored- it makes sense that there ought to be an added layer of precaution on an institutional basis. Detective Dan Jackson of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office said of threats on Wikipedia, ""Parents and students cannot be expected to police the sites alone, said Los Angeles County Sheriff's Det. Dan Jackson. "How do you make them accountable for policing it? It's pretty much impossible," he said. "Somebody with authority, like the administrator, should be monitoring it" and reporting threats to police, because "we certainly can't cruise the Internet on thousands of sites."[1]. As a result of such expert opinions it's clear enough that a guideline is appropriate. Bstone (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. First, some detective in a Sheriff's office isn't an expert on Wikipedia. Judging by his statements, he seems to think that administrators are some kind of authoritative figures rather than the janitors that they are. If by "The administrator", he means Jimbo, then sorry; he has better things to do, like deal with actual harm that is being done to BLP subjects at any given time than dealing with the thousands of empty threats that are made. Anyway, especially with regards to off-wiki actions, an administrator is no different than an editor. To me, that shows extreme ignorance on just how we operate. I think this is a viable essay, but as a guideline or policy it might lead people to believe that this is the accepted & appropriate course of action, which simply isn't always the case. Besides, I don't really see the distinction between a TOV against a school and a TOV against an individual or anything else. This is really just a fork of TOV that doesn't add anything special. We can not and should not regulate the off-wiki behavior of our editors. Making that kind of "Well, we can make you do this in the real world" statement would scare lots of people away. While this in and of itself isn't too much of a violation of that, it could get worse using this as a precedent, and I think the benefit is massively disproportionate to the cost. People do this anyway if the IP is in the same region as the TOV. It can and should be up to the editor, with a little guidance from an essay like TOV; or perhaps a specialized one for different types of buildings if consensus decides that's really appropriate and necessary. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ask anyone you know the following question: "Sometimes people post threats to Wikipedia pages, often these are bad jokes but sometimes they are not. Do you think Wikipedia should have a policy on reporting specific threats against school and/or students?" See what they say. The point that Bstone makes above is important - Wikipedia is in the real world, and some expectations of the real world (including a proactive response to threats of school shootings) need to be met in order to avoid recriminations. I'm not asking that we require editors to report school threats - only that we have a policy encouraging it, for multiple types of benefit. It helps Wikipedia, it helps potentially threatened schools and students, it helps Wikimedia generally in the press, and its also the right thing to do. We don't need to sanction people, and we don't need to require them to take action off-wiki that they may not be able to do - but we can certainly have a guideline or policy that asks them to. Avruch ^T 21:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To the first question, I would say "no". I don't see why a threat of violence against a school is any 'worse' or more needing of report than a threat of violence against a hospital or someone's home. That aside, an essay could just as much suggest a course of action that a policy could. Making it policy would only give administrators/ArbCom/whatever the ability to sanction people for not going along with it. As policy, it sets a dangerous precedent, embedding the "We can regulate off-wiki behavior" idea into policy. If you don't need to sanction people, then there's reason for it to be a policy at all. What you're suggesting is a weak suggestion of how to handle threats of violence specifically against schools. That's fine as an essay. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have to wonder - what about this proposal, which requires no one to do anything, makes it unworthy of guideline status? Maybe people have been put off by the debate around TOV - I've made the same arguments as many on that talk page, as you can see in its history. TOV is broad in scope and there have been attempts on multiple occasions to make reporting to AN and the police a requirement rather than something that is encouraged. This proposal doesn't go that far, so what are the specific objections left? Avruch ^T 21:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone realizes the spectrum of "Policy, Guideline, and what you really, really have to do". Some guidelines are never followed. Others, like notability, are really policy that are still labeled guidelines. It could be really confusing for someone, especially younger editors, who, if not familiar with how to go about such things, should really leave it for someone else to do or post it on ANI. As an essay, it would be pretty clear that "You don't have to do that unless you want to". As a policy or guideline, people might get the idea that they have to contact law enforcement. I mean, I know that Wikipedia isn't going to do anything to me if I ignore the guideline/policy and leave it for someone else to contact law enforcement (something I would never do unless I myself was in danger), but other people might be under the impression that they have to were it written into official guidelines. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you had specific information about a threat to a high school near you, with a date and time and a list of targeted students (which has happened), you wouldn't choose to notify the police? The reason to make it a guideline or a policy, even without the spectre of sanctions, is for profile - precisely so that people feel "encouraged" to actually take action, reporting a specific threat to AN at a minimum. Essays people might follow if they ever saw it, but most essays disappear into the anonymity of the Wiki-ether. Avruch ^T 21:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

God no, of course I wouldn't. That's the last thing I would do. You probably don't have much experience in dealing with law enforcement. They have a nasty habit of presuming guilt, and in my experience, will take whatever avenues they can take to keep up the appearances of an investigation, even trying to drag a confession out of the person reporting a crime, turning them into a suspect. It's happened to me before when I lived in Maine and reported a computer crime, subsequently became a suspect and was held in a cell for 17 hours followed by 8 hours of questioning. Ever since then, I've tried to distance myself from law enforcement as much as possible. If that means not reporting a crime, so be it; I'd rather have the crime happen and not have me linked to it then have it happen and have me be the one reporting it. I'd post a thread to ANI, certainly, or at the very least leave a message at the talk page of someone who would, but I'd never contact law enforcement on something with as small a percentage chance of actually happening as a TOV on Wikipedia. People can find an essay easily. If they can't, they can go to the reference desk and say "Hai gaiz, dis guy was all like 'Ima blow up teh middle school, k?", what I d0?" and someone answers with "Ah, there's an essay (WP:TOV) for that." It'd be the same way if it were guideline/policy, I don't really follow you there. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, clearly we won't come to an agreement on this proposal if you couldn't even call the police about a specific threat to a school in your neighborhood. I'm not sure that there is much value in continuing a discussion between us without at least that common basis, we are obviously not going to convince eachother. For what its worth, I've had my share of interactions with law enforcement and I haven't experienced any of what you relate above. Avruch ^T 22:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That 'profile' is precisely the problem. Having it as a guideline/policy creates the illusion of sanctions, at the very least. It pushes people towards taking a specific action (i.e, contact the 5-0). I suppose if it were written in a way that didn't encourage people to take any specific action and merely presented a number of possible ways of going about it (refer it to someone else, contact law enforcement, post to ANI), then I could support it as a guideline, but that's not what this is. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The most important part of what you (i.e. Seraphimblade) have said needs additional bolding, as many seem to misunderstand: all the guidelines that we already have are about editing the Wikipedia. This was never explicitly stated, nevertheless this is a fact. Now, this proposal is about regulating people's behavior after reading the Wikipedia. Such guideline woud be just inappropriate on "Wikipedia:" namespace. It is completely off-topic here, as I understand it. It would spawn a brand new category of instruction creep, like we didn't have enough. --Kubanczyk (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Its true that if this proposal were to require action from anyone it would be an affirmative obligation, something generally unknown among policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. But since no requirement is being imposed, no affirmative obligation exists. To quote you, a point "many seem to misunderstand." Avruch ^T 21:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If no requirement is being imposed, then there's no reason to list it as a policy or guideline. That's exactly what essays are for. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is why I am suggestion this to be a guideline. Alternatively, how about a proposal which would ask folks to report school threats to the foundation? Bstone (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is it written that an obligation must be imposed for a policy to be established? Others have said that if you can't block someone for violating a policy, then you shouldn't have it. How many blocks have you seen for AGF, NPOV, or V? Truly, I can't think of any for any of those. Avruch ^T 22:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You've never seen incivility blocks? Watch the blocklog for a while tonight, I'm sure at least one will show up. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to ask what you are trying to achieve here with your comments. Did I say "CIV"? No, I said AGF, NPOV and V. If I'd meant there have been no blocks related to the civility policy, then that is plainly what I would have said. Avruch ^T 00:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point. "Since no requirement is being imposed, ..." - wrong, there is a requirement. Anyone that can identify a threat is required to post it to Administrators' Noticeboard. Read it in the proposal. --Kubanczyk (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Ipso facto, as POLICY, it would have to be followed, and as a GUIDELINE, it is strongly encouraged to be followed. A policy would be You are required to: "(be encouraged) to report these events to the Wikimedia Foundation and the appropriate local police". That's a lot different than a non-binding essay, where it's just "Hey, someone came up with this idea a while ago: "When you see a specific threat of violence against a school, you could contact local police / the foundation". It's all in how it is perceived. As policy, it is perceived as you have to do this. As a guideline, it is perceived as you should really probably do this unless there's a good reason not to. As an essay, it's just this might be a good idea, you probably want to check it out. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Luckily for me, I wrote the proposal, so I'm pretty sure I didn't include "is required to post it to the Administrators' Noticeboard." Avruch ^T 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand the distinction between policies, essays and guidelines. It's not what's in the policy that makes it a requirement, it is it's nature as a policy. Policy is "you have to do this". A guideline would be "You really should probably do this unless you have a good reason not to". An essay would be "Some other people thought this might be a good idea, maybe you should look into it", which is much more appropriate given the risk that the editor is putting themselves at by exposing themselves to law enforcement. The editor should be free to make that choice on their own based on the circumstances, not pushed into it by instruction creep forks of TOV. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. The tag says "proposed policy or guideline" does it not? It does say "should report" doesn't it? It does say "willing editors encouraged" right? Just because something is potentially marked "policy" doesn't mean it is saying something that isn't actually written into it. Avruch ^T 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

From POLICY:

• Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that all users should follow.
• Guidelines are more advisory than policies.
• Essays are pages reflecting the views of an editor or a group of editors.

I have no problem with it as an essay. As an essay, it doesn't place any kind of "You should do this" burden on the editor. It wouldn't be any less effective as a guideline if what the editors are using it for is as a guide for how to go about reporting threats of violence if they so choose. Unless you want to be able to block sanction, or revert people for not following it, then there's really no reason to put the strength of guideline or policy behind it. If you don't want to bind users to doing it under penalty of sanctions/reversions/blocks, then it's fine as an essay. It's just as a policy at WP:School Threats, a guideline at WP:School Threats, or an essay at WP:School Threats, its just as findable and linkable from other pages, such as TOV. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy, guideline or essay - it seems like a bad example of instruction creep to me. I can't imagine anyone not already taking appropriate action if they saw such a threat. Or, in the rare case of someone so new to the project that they won't know who to call, I can't see them ever finding this page in time to be useful. Worse, by having a "policy" page, we're then creating a liability for ourselves if we don't live up to it. I'm sure it was well-intentioned but I don't see how anything good comes out of this. Rossami (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is a guideline simply asking folks to report school threats to AN/I then no off-wiki behavior has been mandated. Would that be rejected as well? Bstone (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes a given school more important than someone's home, or a hospital, or a stadium, or a civic center? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As schools are often filled with young, innocent kids who have no way to defend themselves. It's arguably most horrifying when we hear about a school shooting. Further, with the history of school shootings we must be vigilant and very cautious about them. Lastly, school shootings are sometimes no indiscriminate acts of violence like the public places you spoke up. Bstone (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I would find a rampage through a cancer ward just as horrifying as a school shooting. I guess I just don't understand why we should encourage ignoring a threat to a hospital filled with people just as incapable of defending themselves, but encourage not ignoring a threat to a school on the basis of it being a school. Logically, it just doesn't make sense. I think that the way it is is best: people have a guide at TOV on how to deal with specific threats of violence (to anything, not just schools). If people are comfortable with speaking to law enforcement, they can go ahead and do that; if not, they can post on AN. No obligations, no confusion about whether it's a binding policy/guideline or not, just a guide on how to handle the problem if the person so chooses. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This place is filled with innocent editors who try to write a decent encyclopedia. It's arguably most horrifying when I see people cluttering their instructional pages with very important off-topic advices (advices disguised as guidelines for some reason), thus making the really important on-topic guidelines harder and harder to find! --Kubanczyk (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Schools are more likely to make headlines. --Carnildo (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And? What is it in the nature of the school that makes it more imperative for an editor to expose themselves to law enforcement versus the less imperative essay? That is, what makes this so much more important that we need a semi-binding policy to dictate editors actions, when we've already decided that everything else is at the discretion of the editor? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion is missing the point; it irrelevant whats worse, killing invalids or school children. Its also irrelevant whether one, Keifer Sutherland style, would call the popo because you have the scoop on a possibly illegal activity. What matters is that the idea that anonymous threats of violence, coming from god knows where, shouted randomly somewhere on Wikipedia, hardly qualifies as evidence, let alone an especially good anonymous tip on a crime hotline. The potential for vandalism is huge; want to get out of a test? Threaten to light up your school on a well-read talk page. Its counter-productive to what the author obviously presumes would be a kind of good samaritan action. SiberioS (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Recommend merge

Recommend merging this to WP:TOV and marking as a conduct guideline. But WP:UCS really covers both. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is already a discussion concerning marking this as a guideline, I think it is not very wise to re-start it from scratch. And the same goes for WP:TOV. I support the merge proposition itself - as it effectively prevents it from ever becoming a guideline. --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason: good for media

A good reason for having this policy is that it tells the media that we actually care about such things. Recent media on threats on Wikipedia have written things along the lines of "Isn't Wikipedia dangerous that they just let these things happen?". User:Krator (t c) 12:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a politician, it is not a celebrity. Should Wikipedia modify guidelines or policies just to maintain good PR? Media are discussing many issues just for the sake of (loud) discussion, just to buy some more customers. Tomorrow other topics will be hot. How responding to each media issue can possibly support our main task (i.e. creating a good encyclopedia)? How your argument responds all the guideline's actual problems, those mentioned above? --Kubanczyk (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we here to write the best encyclopedia that we can, or are we here to cater to the media and create policies for the sake of maintaining good PR? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)