Wikipedia talk:Threats of violence/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Why this is a bad idea

This proposal ahs the potential to encourage a number of entirely undesirable behaviours, such as wikilawyering and gross over-reaction. Most of the "threats of violence" I have seen on Wikipedia - and that is a pretty large number - lack any credibility at all, not least because they are made against pseudonymous editors whose whereabouts is unlikely to be known to the aggressor. Think of the thoroughly debased currency of "death threats", where complainants diagnosed everything from garden variety incivility down to perfectly civil but misunderstood comments as "death threats", either through lack of Clue or in the hope of getting an opponent indefinitely blocked. If anyone feels there is a genuine risk of harm to them from another person editing Wikipedia, they need to contact OTRS, I would say, and let the office look into it. We do not need self-appointed guardians of the world running round like headless chickens every time some attention-seeker says "I go shoot up the school now!" It's none of our business as individuals, the office is the best point of contact and Cary has sound judgment, so I would leave it to him. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy has changed my mind. I think I'd be more supportive if the page said "You don't have to do anything, but you could contact OTRS if you want. Reverting and ignoring is usually a good idea too." Dan Beale-Cocks 17:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

hear hear.... most particularly "It's none of our business as individuals" - which for me is the single largest advantage of having just a few words saying 'let someone know' - which means if you think about a threat just a little bit, and find it serious, then don't start a thread on a noticeboard, don't ask all and sundry what to do, or what the 'policy' is, have a look at the advice here, and drop someone an email, or make a call... job done! - ps. as a 'common ground' finding exercise, could I ask you (Guy) for your thoughts on the merits of the advice given, rather than its role as policy or not - does it make sense to you, or could it be clearer / better (I'm thinking particularly of the bit which suggests leaving a note at AN/I - maybe that should be a link to OTRS, or something like that?) - let's try and make it the best advice possible, regardless of its 'status'! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

per your point about the office, and mine above about making the advice offered as strong as poss. - I've added the OTRS system as a line of reporting... Privatemusings (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You took Guy's point, but I believe you mistook it (I could be wrong). I have to agree, that we do not really want to guide any editor to take action or inaction off site. The policy proposal is irreversibly flawed in this manner. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry to cause confusion, nonvoc - what I was trying to say is that I agree with Guy's point, but think that it actually points to a different conclusion than the one he drew. I was also trying to solicit feedback and input about the quality of the advice offered on the page, rather than its status (so as to leave to one side for a moment consideration of whether or not the use of this advice as 'policy' is fundamentally flawed or not). What do you think of the writing? Is it clear? Does it make sense? Is there anything you disagree with, or agree with, within it? - My hope is that to focus on the quality of the advice for a moment will help more! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a suggested rewrite here. I've taken out the guidance and shoulds, and ought too's. Thoughts? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I quite liked the ref.s, nonvoc - any particular reason to remove them? Privatemusings (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I do understand, and I thought they were good also. However, we ought not pay any special credence to a group because of credentials, sort of like the article space references. "The police recommend it, so it must be right" is something we should avoid. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonvocal i really don't understand why you would not accept the advice of every police force we have had contact with, from the USA to Sweden. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The project ought not to guide an editor in offsite actions. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So ""The police recommend it, so it must be right" is something we should avoid." is just a smoke screen. All organisations have a responsibilty to up-hold the Law of the Land, i personally want the Foundation to do the calling the police and EMS rather than leaving it to chance (ie whichever random editor calls it in). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be a foundation issue then, you might post this to foundation-l AT wikimedia DOT org NonvocalScream (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll change your minds when the press links the death of someone to wikipedia just like what happened with BLP. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Current Version

I like the current version. Shall we elevate it to guideline status? Bstone (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its necessary, perhaps {{essay}}. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a guideline is a good idea. There is already an essay and TOV represents and latest effort to expand on it. Guideline would not require people to act but would be a mechanism to follow. Bstone (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

A guideline is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

This would suggest that one would be highly encouraged to follow the recommendations here. An essay would instead be informative and give the mechanism. It does not do well to have this page as a policy, or a guideline for those reasons specified above. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with NonvocalScream. There has not been sufficient discussion of the change in the text to be able to claim community consensus for this to become guideline. It does not link to the other relevant essays. It does not include the OTRS email (or other manner of contacting OTRS, which includes IRC if I remember correctly). Remember that OTRS is completely volunteer-based; they get to choose their assignments, and there is no guarantee that the message will be read in a timely manner once emailed. "Subject to reporting" has an awkward feel to it, as if it means "your threat may be reported" rather than "any editor seeing what they think is a threat can report". I still feel this is an essay, and in its now abbreviated form might be better merged to existing essays rather than standing alone, where it is less likely to be viewed or kept up-to-date with changing consensus. Risker (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If only there was something slightly more definitive than an essay but not as concrete as a guideline. Bstone (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless of this document's status as essay or guideline or whatever, when a threat is reported to WP:ANI, some editors will act and others will not act. I don't see how having an official guideline versus an informal essay changes that. --Iamunknown 22:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actual example

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Threat. Carcharoth (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I replied on ANI. Bstone (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Essay

There is still no consensus for guideline/policy, it is unlikely one will form. I've changed the tag around. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There ought to be something called {{advice}} which is solid advice which represents more than just one editor's opinion but less than guideline/policy. Bstone (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is always this template... {{sofixit}}. Avruch ^T 18:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I sofixed it - I think. Maybe others can weigh in and/or modify the (slightly) customised tag I devised? --Iamunknown 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

EL

I just added this article to the EL section. Special attention to the quote, "The fact that the threat mentioned a certain date helped administrators at Evergreen Park Southwest Elementary decide to shut down, district superintendent Craig Fiegel said." This about sums up what we should be doing. Schools are taking these threats super duper seriously. So should we.

The box on the page

We don't defer to credentialism anywhere on Wikipedia, and I rather doubt we should start here, on a serious subject. The fact that Wikipedians who are emergency workers would support this appears to discount those who are not in the field but support; and it is not possible to draw conclusions about whether it is just a few people in these fields who support this essay, or a significant number or percentage of editors in the field who agree. I don't mind a custom box, but I have a real problem with one that explicitly mentions credentials of any of the editors who support action based on this page. Risker (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, we do refer to credentialism. Jimbo even set up a credential verification process, which I will be submitting myself to go through. The normal essay template does not suite for an issue of this magnitude and it needs to be said that this is supported by those professionals who have specific training and certification in the topic. Bstone (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Hard to believe I missed that, I'd appreciate a link to the appropriate page so I can learn more (you could leave it on my talk page so it doesn't clutter up this one). The last I remember is that about this time last year, the community turned his idea down; however, there has been a bit of a spark in relation to that over on WT:RFAR with consideration to having sort of sub-panels of experts dealing with some of the content issues that ArbCom cannot address. Risker (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Left note on your talk page with link. Bstone (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the box is not what I had in mind when I edited it, but then again this is a wiki ^_^ I suspect if the opinion of the wider community were solicited, however, there would not be support for the header as it currently reads - maybe I'm wrong, I guess I wouldn't know until outside opinions were sought.

Also, although Jimbo detailed a proposed credential verification process, it was never really accepted by the wider community - see Wikipedia:There is no credential policy for some meta-background. --Iamunknown 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a policy, or a guideline, and actually, not anymore weighty than an essay

I have replaced the essay tag. The custom message box gives the essay more weight than it should have. This is opinion piece and should not be coming across as guidance from the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Essay is woefully inadequate

For an issue of such importance, an essay is woefully inadequate. With so many references from police, EMS and public safety professionals and with those same professionals opining on this talk page repeatedly that this needs to be more than just an essay, the custom box is most appropriate. Do not underestimate the importance of this. It should be a policy, in my opinion. Bstone (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Friendly notice

Made a note on the mailing list for outside comments. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Merged

A little bold of me, however, I have merged this essay into Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. The two are very similar. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Um. Hmmm, not sure how I feel about it. Perhaps a little discussion before just doing it? We did just spend a month or two working on TOV and getting it to a state where we agree the content is appropriate. Then again, um, hmmmm. Confused. Bstone (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally opposed to the WP:BRD way of doing things, that is to say, you ( or i ) can revert, and we can discuss. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, BRD. I like that one. SO I think it's a good move, in the end. Is there a way to preserve this talk page over there? Bstone (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Maybe as a subpage, or... I'm not sure actually. I'll research a little. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent case which made the news

This happened yesterday. John Reaves contacted the police per suggestions on this page. This was the result. I think we can be proud of ourselves, especially John Reaves and seriously consider upgrading this essay to guideline through further discussion, expansion, etc. Bstone (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, there are plenty of reasons numerated above for not upgrading this to guidance from the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Another article [1]. Bstone (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

avoidance of trolling and drama

This essay/guideline/policy is useful. Avoid drama, do not feed the trolls, but (if you want to) report incident to authorities, giving them as much information as you can. I don't know why that is controversial? When someone makes a TOV they're either making an in-joke that's been misunderstood; pranking / vandalising; trolling; or about to go postal. (Report?)revert,ignore seems the best way to deal with all of those. Dan Beale-Cocks 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The controversy comes when people add mandatory reporting requirements to it. --Carnildo (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah.. it's a bit unclear how it benefits the project to actively help the trolls achieve their desired disruption. I suspect many editors just won't buy it for this reason. Others can report this stuff if they wish. Friday (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No it benifits the people that this will save from harm, the side effect of stopping wikipedia getting bad press is something i don't care about. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In some countries there are laws requiring mandatory reporting. Even if you are a bystander and just happen to witness something. Friday, while it may be trolls 99% of the time, it's the 1% of the time which we must be utterly concerned about and make absolutely certain not to pass off as simple trolling. Bstone (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you live in a country in which such a law makes sense, or has been enacted for other reasons, then you are more than welcome to follow that law. I however live in a country where until recently things like killing sprees were only known as a strange US custom and people still haven't started to kill each other for the way they drive. I am not the only one who is not going to make a fool of himself by, say, running to the police in Leeds because an IP address from Thailand has threatened to kill an anonymous editor whose user page says he lives in Melbourne. The normal reason for insane laws and recommendations of this type is described in the article Cover your ass. If such rules were followed by a significant part of the population, it would completely paralyse the police; meanwhile criminals could do what they want. Fortunately most people have too much sense to believe this crap, so that mooninite terror and torturing an immigrant to death for being disturbed and speaking "Russian" are still exceptions that only happen when a critical mass of rule-following idiots come together. Can you please stop beating this dead horse? --Hans Adler (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes Hans all rules are EVIL!!!!!!All police are EVIL!!!!! Emergency Medical Personel and the Police don't know what there talking about!!!!!!!! Get a grip.^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's try and keep this discussion smooth. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Hans shouldn't insult Police and EMS personnel or us "rule-following idiots". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

All parties to this discussion, actually. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I am going to completely ignore what Hans has to say because, well, this is Wikipedia and I can choose to ignore someone. Oh a separate note, I just added "An earlier version of this page was proposed as a policy or guideline but did not gain consensus" to the page. You may ask why, being that I was and still am of the position that this should be much more than just an essay. The reason is that people should know that the community rejected this and we must all hope that that never comes back to harm us. It's also purely historical. Bstone (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Response Team?

What do you all think about creating a sort of response team? It would be purely voluntary and of course ex-officio to the project, but something of a short list of editors and administrators who have volunteered to be involved with a TOV happens and take point/lead in communicating with whatever person, building, agency, etc needs to be contacted. While formal credentials would not be bad -as then you might have a bit of experience in interacting with law enforcement and EMS- the main requirement is having good communication skills and being able to keep a level head. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. But you should coordinate this with the Wikimedia Foundation. I would trust Mike Godwin to have some very sensible thoughts about that matter, and they should really have an overview. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the project scope. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Scream, I'd like to suggest otherwise. This is not beyond the scope of the project. Wikipedia is real life, per WP:IRL. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A 'response team' is not a great idea. Can you imagine the "But why didn't the response team do anything about this TOV???", and seeing how accusations of 'threat' or 'incivil' or 'pov' are thrown around on ANI it's a possible stick for editors to use against each other. It also provides a target for disruptive troll-like behaviour ('see the response team dance') Dan Beale-Cocks 10:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Scream, this response team, like I said, would be entirely unofficial and purely voluntary. Anyone is free to report a TOV but having a short list of people who know how and are eager to help might be useful. Is it beyond the scope of the project? Perhaps. That's why it's unofficial and purely voluntary. Bstone (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is in the real world

Wikipedia is in the real world and as such we must consider that this encyclopedia project has grown beyond merely contributing to an encyclopedia. Bstone (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said that Wikipedia is not real. The English Wikipedia is not an emergency services clearinghouse. Why are we so focused on this? NonvocalScream (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm starting to be swayed by NonvovalScream's points. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just think what might happen when and if the worst happens. My efforts here are to develop a system to mitigate any chances of the worst happening. Imagine the horror when/if the worst happens and there is indeed a warning/manifesto put on the article of the high school. An editor here sees it, looks at this essay and decides it's not binding and thus passes off the posted threat as a hoax or joke. Then, in the one case in which the ball is dropped, the worst happens and people are dead. Imagine the fall out which would occur with the investigation, the media reports of "Wikipedia ignoring an early warning", etc. I am simply attempting to convince everyone to implement the advice given by every professional that we take all threats seriously, this proposal becomes a guideline and not a mere piece of advice and hopefully avoid the worst. Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse of emergency services, but as the essay says Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum and we must remember that. Bstone (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically, we can plan for just about //any// contingency. The one you quote is a very unlikely one. Keep in mind, that threats are generally reported to ANI, and if that worst case occurs, rest assured, someone will report. This entire thing is outside the scope of the project, and has many problems. To include encouraging people to take off wiki actions no matter the consequence. Are you willing to take responsibility for the editor who reports a TOV in a country where editing is not permitted (thus they get caught)? DId you consider the consequences? We ought not encourage or discourage anything here, but allow editors to use common sense. We do not require emergency guidance or services on this encyclopedia, and never have. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe that continued discussion endlessly will generate consensus where consensus has failed, and is currently unlikely to generate? NonvocalScream (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So you mean to say that the because the chances are low of someone actually posting a manifesto and then going into a school/building/public place we should keep this only as an essay? That seems to be the crux of what you are suggesting. Mind you, I am not suggesting that the individual who comes across a TOV be the one who must report it to police, but rather that once it is discovered that someone be required to take point. Obviously we cannot rely on WMF for that as they open at 9am and close at 5pm. By the time they get wind of the situation we all may be seeing it on the news and shaking our heads. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Just think how quickly TOV would become policy, not just a guideline, if the above described scenario happens. Bstone (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we can not require anyone to take point. We should not be issuing guidance on how to handle these things. From the discussion above, we know this is not going to become a guideline or a policy any time soon and no amount of alarmism via scenario would help things. Additionally, seeking the WMF make a recommendation seems to be your best hope. Have you posted to the foundation mailing list yet? NonvocalScream (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Scream, perhaps some people should not be offering guidance on how to deal with TOVs, but as a certified public safety professional I can and am opining on how to respond. As well all of the referenced articles include other public safety professionals saying the same. So why the nay-saying? Further, alarmism would play on one's fears of something which has never happened. As we both know, credible threats of violence are already occurring. I am appealing to realism, not alarmism. Bstone (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have really tried to sway us away from credentialism, however, would you be willing to publish your national registry certificate number and the the name of your medical director that authorizes the scope of practice allowing you to do this education? I'm not asking for the publication, but is question is are you willing to do so in this forum? Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As it says on my userpage, credential verification upon request. Send me an email and I'll link you to the NREMT site with my info on it. Bstone (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want them, I'll take your word for it. They should not be used on this project however, this essay is not guideline or policy. And for good reason as above. Regardless of any scenario placed. In my work, if I started reporting every threat ov violence, I would be all day busy. Basically, the status quo works. We do not need anything extra, be it guidance, an extra otrs queue, a special irc channel, et al. Nothing more is needed here other than ANI and common sense. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading the Bstone's point correctly, this policy should be renamed to Wikipedia:Cover your ass. Am I correct? --Carnildo (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

CYA usually is a humorous attempt at doing the right thing or taking steps to ensure that you can't be blamed. I am making a completely serious attempt at avoid ever having to CYA, passing the buck, etc but rather creating a mechanism in which lives very wel lmay be saved. For myself and the other public safety professionals who have posted here, we take WP:TOV to be a policy, not a guideline or an essay. Bstone (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent fallout and public reaction

I'm going to post a quote here from a news article which was written about 2 threats- one which we did handle well and another which we failed to even utter a response to. It's a quote from a mother whose opinion I completely agree with.

Some parents thought the school should have detected the threats earlier; others blamed Wikipedia for not reporting or taking them down sooner.

"Places like Wikipedia that are public have some responsibility, whether they were joking around or not -- there's a responsibility for public safety," said Cindy Greenup, the mother of a Wilson freshman.

Violent threats on Wilson High's Wikipedia page went unchecked

I entirely agree with this and, I pray, this will help to influence those of you who might be on the fence or even disagree. Bstone (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well right now its tough that we're a volunteer project, so unless there was some central reporting place staffed with users willing to make calls around the clock, I don't see how we can work towards what those parents want. MBisanz ^talk 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a site run by volunteers, and we should not be guiding folks on this. Basically, volunteers can report if they want to, and the community should not be forced into taking responsibility for the guidance off off site reporting. No, not at all.

I don't work for the parents, if they like, they can police the site.

Why are we still here? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely as this is a volunteer project we can't have real-time 24/7 monitoring, but it's clear the parents are demanding from us a guideline or policy requiring us to take threats seriously and report them. Bstone (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A good deal of folks make off wiki demands. This one, is unreasonable. As I said, if they want to form a wiki watch (akin to neighborhood watch) they can. I reference my above points. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We are here, Scream, because the public has gotten wind that Wikipedia has no mandatory reporting policy for threats of violence, even to scools, and is demanding that we change that. I couldn't agree more. Your opinions have been made abundantly clear. Bstone (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You are a good contributer. I know that.

We don't need a mandatory reporting policy. We should not be taking responsiblity as a community for any advice, good or bad, in this arena. If people report, let them. Do not force them to do anything off wiki. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Another quote:

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."

[2]

Guess what- that's us. Here we have it, yet another police department, tell us what we all know is the right thing to do- make this a guideline/policy. Bstone (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, until the law mandates it.

You say "we all know" if that was the case, this would have consensus. It does not. For the *many* reasons numerated above. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we at least have a well-advertised forum for recent changes patrollers to report credible threats to, where experienced volunteers would take the appropriate action? If such a forum exists, I do not know of it. Skomorokh 18:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested it be reported to AN/I. The ones that have been have been dealt with appropriately. Bstone (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with NonvocalScream's attitude. I think it would be deeply irresponsible for us to not continue to be vigilant and careful, and when mistakes are made, it makes no sense to lash out at the people who want to know what happened. I think it is very important that we respond appropriately to threats, and that we acknowledge that it is difficult to make judgment calls about it. I encourage people to err on the side of caution and report things to AN/I quickly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy, you stated my attitude incorrectly. I don't disagree that we should be cautious and report to ANI. I have nothing further to offer.

Bstone, I don't question your motives, I know they are good. Thank you for discussing these things with me. I'll disengage, I don't think I have anything new to bring to the table. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to apologize without reservation if my words were interpreted in the sense of "attitude" as in "you have a bad attitude" or anything like that. I only intended to say that his approach, his perspective, is different from mine, and I do not agree with his. "I don't work for the parents, if they like, they can police the site" is not an approach to the problem that I find valid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, should this be upgraded to guideline or policy? You seem to be implying we have some type of responsibility to report threats of violence, which I agree with. If I am correct, then should this be upgraded to guideline/policy? Bstone (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

NVS, I do appreciate your constant input. I do very much appreciate the civil nature of our debate. Bstone (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it should probably be observed that, except to the extent he acts in his capacity as an employee of the Foundation or a member of the Board of Trustees or pursuant to a delegation of authority thereof (this is an issue about which the Foundation might, one supposes, take a position, but it has yet, AFAIK, to do so, and I don't imagine that it would counsel the creation of any system of on-wiki reporting), Jimbo is possessed of no particular prerogative to elevate essays to guideline or policy status unilaterally. It is true that the community has traditionally accorded significant weight to the views (as, for instance, that an essay ought to be upgraded to policy by the community) that Jimbo espouses about various broad issues (in view, inter al., one imagines, of his having as expansive a memory of our institution as might anyone, of his having guided the project with a strong hand during its younger years and his having been an architect of certain of the practices by which we continue to operate and of the principles that continue to underlie the project, and of his being the principal public face of the Foundation generally and of the en.wiki project and community specifically and in that capacity his having occasion to come to know a good deal about how the Foundation and its projects are perceived and how best they might gain pecuniary and participatory support), but as he well and often, to his considerable credit, acknowledges, he is not (and does not wish to be) imbued with the power to substitute his views for those that community might articulate. Joe 05:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that is foreseeable that something terrible can happen from someone that posts on wikipedia, the day that something bad does happen, wikipedia will look all the more worse from all those people asking why we didn't "stop him" or contact anyone. The reason is, its technically not our problem. Get over it. JeanLatore (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats awfully nice of you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I will ignore JeanLatore's opinion. Just look at his/her talk page for some humorous insight why. Bstone (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• If a school has an issue with Wikipedia, it can block access to it. If someone threatens violence onwiki, then it can and should be reported to WP:ANI, just like it has been all along, and it'll be dealt with. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• • The question is what to do when it gets to ANI. Pass it off as a hoax and ignore it? Or report it to the police? The police have been incredibly clear on this issue- report it. The public has also made their opinion clear- report it. So, what are we to do once it gets to ANI? This proposal is about how we view threats of violence and what do to with them. Jimbo has just said we are to err on the side of caution and report them. That, I believes, sets this as not just an essay but as a guideline. Bstone (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Once it gets to AN/I, there are a handful of folks who have stated they will report such threats to the local authorities. That's what seems best, a voluntary group of folks who work on these issues. If we make it mandatory for any editor to report such incidents, it could make things worse as editors A) call the wrong police district, or B) we wind up with multiple (possibly) conflicting reports to the police which slows down responses. And while I respect Jimbo, he is not able to hand down guidelines from on high (not that I think he would do so anyway). We've had several guidelines proposed to this end, but could never reach consensus. The current method is working, but some people will never be happy. The latest incident was reported to the police and acted on within a matter of hours. That's about the best we can reasonably hope for. -- Kesh (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • • He is technically able, but he hasn't done so in this case. Reporting threats to AN/I has been common practice all along, and is part of the "Responding to threats of harm" essay at WP:SUICIDE. The guideline/policy/essay/whatever here has always included a responsibility to report threats to authorities, not just AN/I. Avruch ^T 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not create a threat noticeboard monitored by admins who know which numbers to call, the degree of seriousness to attach to each threat and how to go about dealing with it? There will always be some users more able to react to certain problems, it makes no sense to risk the pot luck of WP:ANI, especially given its high profile failings in this regard so far. We do it for blp's, copyvio's, socks and vandalism, why not for threats? Skomorokh 22:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating suggestion. I am curious what others might think. To a certain extend this project page is being used to keep a history of the TOVs we've responded to thus far. However, since this is only an essay there is nothing to require people report anything to any special notice board. If it were a guideline then anything coming across ANI would be moved to a special noticeboard where it could be dealt with and responded to. In the short term ANI is the best place for it, but this might be a longer term solution. Bstone (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got a suggestion; why not create the Notice board as Skomorokh suggests and then make it manditory to report threats to the notice board. That means that the experienced people deal with the Threats and we get as wide a reporting of threats as possible. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you enforce mandatory reporting though? Aleta ^Sing 03:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Move threat threads to the noticeboard and leave peevish comments for noobs at ANI...isn't that how it's always been done? I mean, what happens when someone shows up with a checkuser request at ANI? Skomorokh 03:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly by AGF that if wikipedians are told they should report all threats to the notice board that they will. Second by blocks if someone Deletes a threat if the admins at the notice board think that is the right course of action, that is not a power i want or think is needed but it could be made available. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Another issue (related to the above remark of not being able to identify the correct police station) is of course the international nature of Wikipedia. Personally I would not even be able to find my way to a local US police station/internet site to report such a thing (I would probably not get further than trying to find a way through the website of the FBI or something). I am pretty sure most American editors won't be able to report a credible threat on Denmark related articles to the Danish police (in Danish). So if there is any consensus that this may ever be a good idea there should be a very strong policy that help editors what to do, whom to report to, in what way etc, what to do with international issues etc etc. This will not be easy. Arnoutf (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Arnoutf raises a good point and shows why leaving it to chance as to what one editor can do is a bad idea. The notice board with its dedicated team could have list of the phone numbers of US police stations and other appropriate contact details for police around the world with coordination through meta wiki to the other language encyclopedias we could have a native speaker on tap for most of the world. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think threats of violence either to one self (suicide) or others should always be taken serious and be reported to the appropriate emergency institutions. But Arnoutf bring up an important point. I live in europe and would probably be able to figure out what to do if someone in western Europe, North America, Japan or Australia where in trouble but I wouldn't have a clue as how to deal with something from China or some other un-democratic country. :/ I'm not even sure reporting it would be "the right thing to do". It would be great to have a policy on this outlining what to do for each country so that this doesn't have to be discussed by a committee every time there is a threat. These things typically require quick response. I don't think the community have to keep track of every edit, but if its reported to wp:ani or wp:an then the admins have a responsibility to act and would benefit from having a policy to follow. (and the times it have happened most people have responded correctly (in my opinion) but it would have been faster and smoother if there was a policy with information on phone-numbers etc). Apis (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought: since someone was able to create a series of bots that were able to flag images that didn't have certain information in their use rationales, would it be possible to look at some of these threats, work out common words and phrases, and create a bot that would automatically flag these as suspicious? I say flag as opposed to outright report because a human would need to look at each case to make sure it wasn't a false positive of some sort (i.e. a quotation, a plot summary, etc). That might be a way around the fact that, as a volunteer project, we can't always be on top of things. 23skidoo (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As the person who created at least one of those bots, I'd say no. Even for something as constrained in form as fair-use rationales, it was difficult getting the false-positive rate down. I wound up with about a 0.5% false positive rate, and about a 99% false negative rate. For threats, it would be even worse. --Carnildo (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the box.

It is inaccurate. Please don't reinsert without a consensus to do so. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely accurate. The references make it clear it is accurate and those with credentials in EMS and police have stated it is accurate. Please stop removing it. Bstone (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Credential ism has no place on the encyclopedia. I have edited the box in compromise. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd support re-adding it, and leaving it. It states it is not a guideline or policy, and I don't know why you are disputing it, NonvocalScream. It's been up there a while, thus consensus should have been achieved to remove it, not to re-add it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, when I read up I See that. Sorry. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Afterall, I did add the line which said this has been considered for guideline/policy and was rejected. Bstone (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What if other disasters loom...?

• What if a Wikipedian gets wind of the fact that a country is about to be invaded or if there is an imminent coup d'état that will take place, should it become Wikipedia's job to police the world and report these matters to the UN or to Interpol?
• What if Islamic Jihadists are discovered sending covert messages using Wikipedia's communications systems, should Wikipedia then report these matters to the CIA, the Mossad, and to an array of intelligence agencies?
• What if a Wikipedian reads comments at any one of thousands of airport articles that some misdeed may be in the offing in that locale, should Wikipedia have the job of calling up the relevant airport security service and start alarm bells ringing there?
• What if a Wikipedian is caught advocating spanking kids in any one of tens of thousands of child psychology articles, should Wikipedia have the job of seeking out the nearest social service and child custody agency to report and seek out potential violators of child safety laws?
• What if some wayward editors were to discuss ways of ripping off some system or other, like talking about computer hacking or drag racing or pot smoking or seriously talking of and clearly intimatating doing any antisocial behavior or of being sociopathic, does it fall upon Wikipedia to moniter, report and follow up with such cases with relevant authorities and mental health workers?

There are so many other questions and examples like the ones above, but they all make it quite obvious that Wikipedia is NOT "the police" and has no interest in working as some sort of quasi-police "paramilitary" that is on constant "standby" with its antena up waiting to latch on to the slightest hint of trouble on the horizon and if so to let it be reported to "the police" or some such law enforcement agency and certainly Wikipedians should avoid and not be expected to perform the functions of "misguided glorified snitchers" and "hopelessly misdirected do-gooders." Wikipedia has enough mechanisms and noticeboards in place where abuse and problems can be reported and it does not need to take on any such semi-policing jobs for itself that go well beyond its task as the world's premier digital encyclopedia where editors are expected to write, edit and improve articles and not monitor the universe for potential misdeeds or disasters in the making. Wikipedia is about writing and improving an encyclopedia and not about "saving the world" from itself. IZAK (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is why this is an essay. The reason why this will never gain policy status is due to all the reasons you mentioned above. There is only so much we can all do of course. However, just because many scenarios are beyond the scope of our control doesn't mean we shouldn't respond to any period. It isn't to encourage do-goodism...its to prevent some seriously bad things from happening. We cannot allow the encyclopedia to be abused as a tool for cyber-terrorism/threats of real life terrorism. By reporting matters like these (by these I mean examples other than the ones you mentioned) we set an example for other potential perpetrators. Ultimately all sides win in my opinion.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Persian Poet: I agree with you 100% but there must be a balance so that Wikipedia does not lose sight of its mission statement. Obviously any sane and responsible editor would be alarmed if something untoward is about to happen, but once you start inscribing "rules" about what to do and what not to do into stone it becomes like trying to re-write the Bible, the rules of morality and the whole gamut of common law, a truly ridiculous and superfluous task. IZAK (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments about Snitches, "the police", Do-gooders and most of all "paramilitary" is offencive and shows very clearly your (and other wikipedians) general attitude to Law enforcement. I've been shocked here by how many people fail to understand the role they play in policing any community (including wikipedia). Any specific and actionable threat should be delt with, as to some of your examples the answers are clear Yes if it is specific and actionable. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hypnosadist: Firstly, this is a discussion. Secondly, kindly do not take words out of context, but please read and understand the statement in its entirety! Thirdly, by all means, people are free to spend all their waking hours and editing time on Wikipedia acting as self-appointed "monitors," if that is what turns them on, but that is not what Wikipedia was created for. Fourthly, with all this desire to "monitor" and "report" any sign of trouble or evil intent inside Wikipedia, it may result in Wikipedia becoming what it was not meant to be, a highly monitored "police state" with self-appointed "Wiki-cops" peering over everybody's shoulders which then strikes against the artistic freedom that writers and creators and editors of articles require not fearing that any minor comment could become the basis of a "Wiki-police" investigation. Fifthly, Wikipedia is not interested in implementing a quasi-1984 scenario where "Big Brother Is Watching You" and where editors are obliged to call up the "police" if you/they don't behave. Finally, Wikipedia must guard gainst a slide to become something it was NOT meant to be, such as these ten examples: (a) Wikipedia is NOT a command center or war room. (b) Wikipedia is NOT a dispatcher. (c) Wikipedia is NOT 911. (d) Wikipedia is NOT an emergency room. (e) Wikipedia is NOT a law enforcement agency. (f) Wikipedia is NOT a crisis intervention center. (g) Wikipedia is NOT a first aid clinic. (h) Wikipedia is NOT a disaster management facility. (i) Wikipedia is NOT a suicide watch facility. (j) Wikipedia is NOT the auxiliary police. -- What Wikipedia is, is ONLY an online encyclopedia. See the Wikipedia article to understand this better. Thank you for paying attention to the entire statement, and for not taking anything out of context by picking it apart. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Any chance of answering civily, i'll reply when you do. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, would love to. Let's talk. What's on your mind? IZAK (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• We are reasonably well able to keep track of what is going on at WP and react to it; and we do so. The distinction between childish nonsense and a serious threat can be indistinct, and we do not response to every absurd threat of violence as an institution, but leave it up to the good sense of the editors and the fact that there are always people monitoring AN/I who are prepared to take the responsibility. We probably do better at this sort of thing than any other organization or website. This is one of the things we have relied on common sense for, and will continue to do so. As we have no formal system for screening, and can not really adopt one in our system, we can however not take formal responsibility. This is one of the things that are not broken. DGG (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed 100% IZAK (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree with the sentiment that if the life of someone is being threatened, and editors on Wikipedia are aware of it, it is the minimally decent thing to do to contact authorities who can act to protect the threatened. However, the other side of the argument is very valid too... when you combine the confusion among ordinary people and even law enforcement about all things technical with the ever growing propensity for overreaction these days, diligent reporting of everything that seems like a threat could cause more harm than good. As an example:

• At least when I was in school, kids made threats that if taken literally would be very serious, but were never meant literally, of the variety: "if you don't stop kicking my desk I am going to _____ you" (where _____ could be any one of "punch", "strangle", "stab", "kill", "beat") and "you are so dead" usually resulting in a vigorous chase across the playground (yeah, really). No one ever got punished, reprimanded, or ended up in jail. These days, it seems like a comment like this could land a kid in juvie. I am not denying that some kids who would say these things could be serious... but the vast, vast majority who do should not end up in a jail cell "just in case".
• Kids, and many adults, just do not comprehend that Wikipedia is not just some online scratch-board where they can put anonymous rants about stuff that pisses them off. These people don't have that little voice in their head that tells them "gee, in that first point, you should be careful to not make it sound like you were making a threat, but instead use a blank space and list the possible words so that people could understand your meaning". While it may be a good thing for them to develop that voice... it is in most cases way too harsh to have them realize it when they are faced with a year of defending themselves in court and paying legal fees.
• I have dealt with police (don't assume anything about that) and I have seen some officers who are very eager to jump the gun and assume the worst. There is ample evidence that there are officers out there who presume everyone to be guilty until they can be proven innocent, and even the best officer usually errs on the side of caution. Needlessly involving police in someone's life is damaging to that person. And because everyone is afraid of getting sued (at least in the US), idle threats issued can lead to shut downs of schools, universities, companies, etc. Taken to its extreme, this goes beyond inconvenience to actual harm.
• Yes, sure, police say report everything and let them decide... but very often, they do not have the knowledge of context needed... we, the editors, do. Unnecessary reporting cost taxpayers money, and more importantly, can distract police from investigating real crime. (Not that I am bitter, but as an example, a few years back I had my car broken into, valuables stolen... the police didn't even bother to show up... they said I should leave my number and they would call me later. I did make sure to follow through... i checked up regularly and was repeatedly informed that no action would be taken. Someone committed a real crime and no effort was made to investigate... in contrast... just the threat of violence is taken much more seriously: "they assigned 13 detectives". Now that may have been reasonable in this case (obviously, a school shooting is much more serious than a car break in)... but if all the threat-like things that get said on the Internet got reported to police... there would be squads of officers running around securing people and places that were never genuinely threatened. And who would be left to protect us from real criminals who actually do things. A threat on Wikipedia is only a possible future crime - good judgement is needed to decide if the possibility is serious enough to warrant notifying the police.

So, if guidelines can be drafted that aid an editor in deciding if and how to report a threat of violence... that is great. But a policy mandating that every thing that seems like a threat is rushed over to local police, then truly this will both detract from the point of the WIkipedia effort and what's worse contribute to a massive problem in modern society, the idea that every one is suspect, the very opposite of WP:AGF. --Marcinjeske (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil and reasoned post, i'll take your bullet points in order. 1)The question of childish name calling and threatening is one which could be delt with by having the proposed noticeboard filter out those that are deemed bad jokes or are not actionable. 2)I see a big difference between a rant that is not directed at a specific person/place and "i'm going to X highschool tomorrow to kill the FOBs" again this common sense would best be centralised to a notice board to give a consistent(-ish) responce. 3)We should not be needlessly involving the police, just in those cases that a specific threat is made, if the time and lawyers fees is harsh life leason and a bit unfair, so what, being subjected to threats is unfair. As to the level of responce that is up to the people or organisation threatened, wikipedians should not take their right to self-defence away because we don't trust them to make the right decision. 4)"Yes, sure, police say report everything and let them decide... but very often, they do not have the knowledge of context needed... we, the editors, do." First yes they say we should report it and its their job to decide what action to take. Second the context is what the notice board and the people behind it would supply. "A threat on Wikipedia is only a possible future crime" This is legally wrong both in the USA and the UK (i don't know about else where), makeing a threat is a real crime. As for distracting from the work of editing, i've been here nearly two years and have not yet run accross a threat on any page i've edited i don't think editors are going to be drowned in work pasteing a link to a noticeboard once in a while. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is going on here? Is User:IZAK proposing that Wikipedians should not be allowed to report crimes? I'm sure that s/he agrees that if a Wikipedian finds about a potential great bodily harm that is to befall someone s/he should report it. Is Izak proposing that Wikipedians shouldn't report pot smokers, then of course. What's the point of all these bytes? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brewcrewer: Note what I stated above, that: "...Wikipedia has enough mechanisms and noticeboards in place where abuse and problems can be reported and it does not need to take on any such semi-policing jobs for itself that go well beyond its task as the world's premier digital encyclopedia..." so that obviously if any emergency comes up it would and must be reported accordingly and appropriately as any normal person would do, but for Wikipedia to start creating and writing-up "policies" and "guidelines" for this is ridiculous. No one needs to be told that if a bank robber enters with a gun and makes threats that it's an emergency and the police must be brought in, but for Wikipedians to be expected to become unofficial "watchdogs" for any and all threats and become hypersensitive to such things only detracts from the main reason we are all here, and that is to write, improve, and edit articles and not to be "law-enforcers" beyond what is obvious in everyday life without Wikipedia "mandating" it. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this policy only concerns "threats of violence" which is something that all persons should be sensitive to. This policy doesn't propose that Wikiedians become "watchdogs" and be "hypersensitive" to every so-called wrongdoing. That being the case, I do think that this "guideline" is common-sensical and therfore superflous. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the page for 24 hours. If you're going to edit-war, could you at least do so over something that isn't a candidate for WP:LAME? --Carnildo (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, there is no edit war? We came to a middle ground a few hours ago. Bstone (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I count at least five reverts in the past day, the most recent of which was less than an hour and a half ago. --Carnildo (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There was an issue regarding the custom intro box or to use the regular essay template. We all agreed upon the custom one. Then there was a question regarding capitalizing something. It's all been worked out and no one I am aware of asked for protection. We worked it out among ourselves. Page protection is utterly not needed and way, way over the top in light of no issue actually existing. Bstone (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As one of the belligerents in the putative edit war (and one on the side of the "issue", to the extent that there is any, opposite from that of Bstone), I too think protection to have represented a significant overreaction here, and inasmuch as everyone has professed, both before protection and after, his or her disinclination to fight over a trivial issue (I, for instance, welcomed a revert of my first minisculizing edit and noted in a subsequent compromise edit, one about which I don't imagine there was to be any particular disagreement, that I had no interest in pursuing the issue further; Bstone, thereafter, in fact, wrote me on my talk page to observe jokingly/lightly that our capitalization "dispute" might well be WP:LAME) (and as everyone has generally, on an issue about which, rightly or wrongly, many editors have strong views, been quite civil and avoided significant edit-warring) I'd suggest that the page be unprotected straightaway. Joe 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Since both sides seem to agree that protection isn't needed, I've unprotected. --Carnildo (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo box

Jimbo's comments, while intresting, do not need to be enshrined in an mbox on the top of the essay. I have removed it. I noticed afterward that the page has been recently protected, so I'm noting that here. ➪HiDrNick! 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, while we're at it, the entire "Incidents" section should be removed, or at least moved to the talk page, per WP:DENY. ➪HiDrNick! 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm afraid the page is sliding back toward "actively harmful" again. Can we at least agree that neither trolls nor genuinely desperate individuals ought to be given instructions? We can agree on that, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavia immer (talk • contribs) [3]

You do realize there has been a fair bit of discussion in keeping a historical record/creating a notice board for TOVs. The incident repository on this project page is perfectly in line with that. Why delete it? Also, why delete the Jimbo box? Other pages have similar and, indeed, it goes to show the gravity in which Jimbo believes taking seriously and reporting threats of violence, despite the essay status. Bstone (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please point to the thread where listing threats of violence on this page has been discussed? This talk page is getting rather big. If I have overlooked such a discussion before posting to your talk page about this one week ago, then your reaction (archiving without replying) probably makes more sense than I thought and I need to revise the opinion that I have formed about you. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just look above. It's here. People are actively discussing a TOV noticeboard and it's mechanics. Bstone (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about serious discussion of the WP:BEANS issue of listing actual threats of violence in Wikipedia and their real-life consequences. I looked for such a discussion because you seemed to claim it has already occurred; if I had found it I wouldn't have asked. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen this "fair bit of discussion" anywhere, but that's a much worse idea than the incident list on this page. In any case, the incident list on this page is still a bad idea whether or not people are proposing a worse one. The WP:JIMBOSEZ quote is simply unnecessary - it reads like special pleading for this topic based on Jimbo's opinion, but unless Jimbo is going to make all of the phone calls, his opinion doesn't trump the opinion of others. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Creating a place to enshrine all the times that our administrators and other editors have been trolled into hysteria by this sort of thing is a poor idea indeed, as it only rewards and encourages the clearly undesirable behavior. Discretion and common sense are the key ideas here. Also, if you can point me to some other essays where Jimbo's word is featured in an mbox at the top of the page, I'll be happy to clean those up as well. ➪HiDrNick! 21:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"trolled into hysteria". DrNick, I respect your opinion but perhaps you can clean up the language? Clearly you disagree with the idea of reporting any sort of explicit threat to the police. I disagree with this, as do the police, EMS professional, Jimbo and a host of editors and administrators on the project. Even making an explicit threat is a felony. Deciding every single one is a hoax and not worth our time is, in my opinion, a poor idea. Again, I do respect your opinion, I reject it and ask that you be a tad bit more careful in your wording. Thank you, Bstone (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how my word choice can be thought of as offensive. The majority of people who spend their free time threatening violence on wiki are indeed trolls, and huge threads on ANI, logs on this page or a would-be notice board, and a story in the Signpost definitely qualify as hysteria. To be clear, I don't think that the idea of reporting threats in general is a poor one. In certain common sense cases, credible threats should be removed from wiki, the offenders blocked, and then incident quietly reported to police. It's the counter-productive ANI fanfare that I disagree with. ➪HiDrNick! 23:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

DrNick, thanks for the reply. Appreciated. You might notice that the nutshell here says "Specific threats of violence are serious, and should be reported." The word "specific" was chosen carefully and deliberately. I am under the impression that specific threats are the ones which are actionable, not a random troll threat. What do you think? Bstone (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we're talking around each other. I agree that some threats should be reported to authorities, but discreetely, not via a noticeboard and not recorded for posterity. Making a big deal about it only gives the people who are yanking our chain the satisfaction they're after. We would be better served by using OTRS or even an admin mailing list to handle this sort of thing. ➪HiDrNick! 23:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

DrNick, I actually applied to be an OTRS volunteer as seen here with the goal in mind of serving the community and the project when a TOV would occur. It seems I was rejected from being an OTRS volunteer on this basis. Perhaps it is better to do it on a discreet mailing list. I am not sold on any particular reporting mechanism, just married to the idea that we do not pass off specific threats as hoaxes. Bstone (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• To borrow and mangle an above quote... "Remember that OTRS is completely volunteer-based; they get to choose their assignments, and there is no guarantee that the message will be read [or read at all (spam filters and such)] in a timely manner once emailed."

I added the emphasis and the stuff in brackets. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I got an email response simply thanking me for my application. Bstone (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean I'm referring to reporting TOV to OTRS. It seems to be an applicable caveat... but I do think it would be appropriate to fwd them to info-en (otrs). Just keep the above in mind. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)