Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Death threats

message: Note, incidentially, that WP:BLOCK#Personal attacks that place users in danger already allows for indefinite blocks for threats, so this policy suggestion merely clarifies and regularises an existing policy. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Existing policy

message: We need, I think, a "how admins should respond to reports of death threats" section, which I'd suggest would be something like:
* check if the report is accurate
* block the user
** if it's a user account, block indefinately.  Use the block reason TBD and leave the TBD message on the user's talk page
** if it's an IP, block for an appropriate time (as specified in Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Guide to blocking times). Even though a death threat is a serious matter, it's pointless to block a proxy or AOL address for a lengthy period.  Use the block reason TBD and leave the TBD message on the user's talk page
* leave a note on WP:AN/I (should this have a note saying "your block is in effect a preemptory community ban, so it's necessary that the community review your decision" ?)
* inform Jimbo and the Arbcom in accordance with WP:BLOCK#Personal attacks that place users in danger
* if a specific person was the subject of the threat inform that person of the block
I think this is necessary because:
* most people (myself included, until right now) don't know about the email jimbo bit
* we don't want people leaving ban summaries that read "WP:DEATH" or something, which itself could be misconstrued as a threat
* the block message they leave on the user's talk page should be link to this policy page
* anons already get vexed when they run across a vandalism warning or block message left for the previous incumbent; a badly worded "you've been blocked for death threats" message is going to give some apoplexy.
-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actions for admins

message: I would recommend that if the location of the person making a death threat is identifiable (via IP information), law enforcement in that area be contacted. Making death threats is, in and of itself, illegal in most jurisdictions, and (IIRC) a felony in some. It would seem to me that due diligence on our part would include acting to prevent possible danger to the subject of the threat. Justin Eiler 17:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most law enforcement won't take action on "if you revert me again I'll kill you."  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd be surprised, they take death threats very seriously these days.  As noted, it's a felony.  Whether it happens online, on the phone, or by mail, it's still a felony. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Reporting to law enforcement is already there in the policy in the section on "What to do..."  It's the victim's responsibility to report the matter.  WP will cooperate but can't report it themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Addition to Protocol

message: If it doesn't work, OK, but the statement seemed clearer. :) Justin Eiler 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor tweak on the nutshell 

message: This policy fails to address threats made by an anonymous user.  Functionally, they may have to be left out of the scope of this proposal since we can't really ban all AOL users.  If so, the page should say so.  If not, the page should explain what recourse is available and appropriate when an anon user is the violator.
It also fails to establish any sanctions when a user simply creates a new ID.  Sure, we might be able to trace it back through CheckUser and re-ban the new ID but who has the time or capability to check every new ID.  So what process is appropriate?
The proposal is also appears to be in conflict with the current wording at WP:BAN which limits who may impose a permanent ban.  
I agree with some of the comments above that this seems redundant to our existing policies.  Given the implementation problems, I don't know what this really adds to Wikipedia's protections or civility.  Add it as a line (or even a paragraph) in WP:BLOCK or WP:BAN.  It seems excessive as it's own page.  Rossami (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more thoughts 

message: Until I read that I wasn't even aware there were sites that exist to "out" admins, giving addresses and such. I don't know if the this page should actually say this -- I'd hate for it to actually give someone an idea and then have them start going in search of said sites. (I personally would be curious to find out if I'm listed on any of them, however.) I'm not sure how to work around this, because the point being made is valid and important. 23skidoo 03:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest rewording of the "outing admins" paragraph

message: I think, overall, that this is a good and needed policy. However, I think it needs one exception. When two users have clearly interacted well and are friends, and the tone of the conversation clearly and unambiguously indicates that it was a joke, and both users continue to interact well, the user in question should not be indefinitely banned, although he or she should clearly be warned. With that single caveat, I support the proposed policy as written. Captainktainer * Talk 04:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on policy - a single caveat 

message: We should require a CheckUser for death threats by users with accounts here. That way, we could contact the relevant law enforcement agencies and ISPs with the information, and they will be able to locate the user making the death threat and bust him or her. Jesse Viviano 05:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who's been there, I support this suggestion (although see my concerns above).  If legal authorities can be contacted with solid IP information, I'm sure they will be much more likely to take the matter seriously. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should require a request for CheckUser whenever a death threat is found. 

message: Comment I'm on the fence about this, leaning slightly towards the supporting side. Many people see death threats as something above and beyond normal personal attacks that need special attention. Ti be honest, I side with them. However, wouldn't the title be better as "Threats Of Violence (WP:TOV)"?It seems to me to be a far more fitting term, covering the wider range of violent threats. Crimsone 03:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: One aspect that isn't mentioned in this policy is where the threat has to be made in order for it to come under the policy's purview.  Cretanpride's death threat wasn't actually on Wikipedia proper; he emailed several users using the "email this user" link on our user pages.  The content of the email made it clear who the sender was, and that it was Wikipedia-related, but the offence wasn't actually on a Wikipedia page; there was no diff that could be linked to.  How should we address this in the policy?  What if the threat was made on another website, or if it was suggested that the threat was related to Wikipedia activity, but not confirmed?  We should consider these options, even if we don't explicitly address them in the policy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the case of CretanPride, he used the Wikipedia mail system to contact all of us with the threat.  I think that this probably places the threat within 'Wikipedian space' as far as policy is concerned.  For that matter, ALL Wikipedia policies should pertain to e-mails sent through the Wiki system (I'd assumed this was already the policy...?).  As for situations completely off the namespace, the policy should probably encourage law-enforcement contact if the user feels the threat is legit, but there's little Wiki admins can do to confirm such threats are coming from specific people. CaveatLectorTalk 06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For threats that are made outside Wikipedia, I note that WP:NPA has a section "Off-wiki personal attacks" that basically says off-wiki behavior can't be controlled, but can be an aggravating factor in evaluating on-wiki behavior. An off-wiki death threat could be seen as an extreme form of personal attack... --Akhilleus (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of threats 

message: There should be something in the policy that states whether or not death threats should be allowed to (temporarily) determine the content of an article.  When 'Emily' was threatened, there was a hot debate as to whether or not to give in to the demands of CretanPride and change the article's content until the issue was resolved.  I'm not sure what the policy should be, exactly.  My gut tells me that the Wiki shouldn't give in to such threats (and that this would only encourage future such threats).  However, this seems to contradict the idea of taking all threats seriously...thoughts anyone? CaveatLectorTalk 06:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the debate led to a mini revert war. Eventually, we didn't make the changes, and the page was protected. I think I'd recommend the same thing in the case of another confirmed threat--don't make the changes, and possibly protect the page. If the policy is to meet the threat-maker's demands, IMHO that encourages bad users to make fake threats. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be good for us to say, as policy, that we don't give in to blackmail. As the People's Front of Judea would say, "No blackmail!" —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell them you are trying to change the page, but it is protected/reverted/whatever, and ask them to wait. ie. negotiate and stall them, while at the same time notifying the relevant people. I would recommend against a blanket ban on giving in to blackmail, as it is sometimes appropriate (think of the unlikely case of someone who is really insane, where acquiesing to demands might give the authorities precious time). Then, when the crisis is over, change things back. This supposes a high level of certainty about what is really going on (I am talking webcams/IRC here) and immediate, genuine danger, though in this sort of case, if genuine, immediate danger was confirmed, I'd hope the whole database would be locked by the office unless continued contact was required by negotiators. My imagination is running a bit wild here, so I'll stop per WP:BEANS. Carcharoth 12:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving in to ultimatums 

message: Although not encouraged, similar threats among proven wiki-friends for humorous purposes, cannot be considered punishable. Same goes for legal threats etc. Examples are all over the talk pages and involve very respectable users and admins. The smiley quote in Answers to possible objections could be heavily misinterpreted and abused, so I would suggest we clear out this issue, without encouraging this sense of often bad humor. •NikoSilver• 11:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps we could counter this by banning users who might be humorously threatening someone a shorter period of time. Like two weeks. --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi!? 03:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humor 

message: I agree fully with Night Gyr above. This policy is unnecesary, all that needs to be done is add a sentence or two into WP:NPA, WP:BLOCK, and WP:CIVIL that says threats of violence are blockable (after discussing on the talk page of course). We don't need an entire new policy that says death threats are bad when anyone with half a brain cell can infer that from WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. If this becomes policy I foresee real contributors joking around and being permabanned for it. --Daniel Olsen 04:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that, while very important, it is probably most appropriate as a subsection to the policies you mention. The more we say about it, the less powerful it is. --Masamage 04:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BEANS]] and [[WP:CREEP]] 

message: This doesn't really need a lengthy page of its own, nor a list of "frequently" asked questions - I'm saying this because we already have a veritable wildgrowth of policy pages, and the more there are the more confusing it gets. I think it would be good to redirect this to the blocking policy, and add a paragraph there. It's really common sense - those who threaten people are not welcome here. >Radiant< 23:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SUrely a more approprate venue for a merge would be WP:NPA, as threats of physical violence or death are essentially personal attacks of an extreme variety? Crimsone 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Merge per Radiant and others. This is silly. John Reid ° 12:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good idea, but 

message: A lot of the discussion on this page is redundant, so let's sound off about it.  --Masamage 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreement by Masamage
*Couldn't this possibly include "threats of physical violence" - I believe if we're gonna have something like this, we should include things like "I know your address and I'm coming to bash the shit outta you sucker" or "you better watch out next time you walk down X street bitch" (where X street is the street their house is on). Could be just called Wikipedia:Threats. --WikiSlasher 13:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. :) I'm wondering though, instead of eliminating it entirely, should we perhaps just mark it as a Rejected Proposal? That would help leave a paper trail in case someone else ever wants to start up something similar. --Masamage 05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect probably works best here. What would be useful is to add a link to this talk page to the talk page over at WP:NPA. Carcharoth 10:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: Here is an example of a 'death threat' that people might wikilaywer over: see here. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic). Carcharoth 10:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha, BJAODN candidate. ...if there was a "destroy this user and ban him for eternity" button... -- you could list it on eBay. ;-P John Reid ° 12:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another example 

message: If the page is moved, instead of redirected, then the text remains available for people to continue working on if they want to. I propose moving the page (and it's talk page) to Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Death threats, and changing the proposal tag at the top to indicate that the page is a subpage of WP:NPA. An example of a similar subpage is Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks/Extension. Is this proposed move acceptable? Carcharoth 10:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds better, I don't like the idea of loosing the page (just my opinion). cyclosarin (previously raptor) 10:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Extension seems to be kind of a siding for a failed proposal - it's not linked by any policy page, only talk pages - so I'd support the move so long as it's similarly indicated that this proposal is not policy. My objection isn't where the article is, it's that we don't need a policy about death threats. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I'll go ahead and do this. Carcharoth 00:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Now done the tag rewrite. No change to redirect. I've now updated the 'cent' template, logged the change, and updated the conclusions subpage (a horrible table to edit!). I think only the redirect is an issue now, though I may add a comment on the WP:NPA talk page so people there can read this discussion and decide what to incorporate into WP:NPA. Carcharoth 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done! :) --Masamage 04:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move instead of redirect? 

message: "Simply put, a single human life is worth more than every Wikipedia article combined."
:i stronly suspect that both the time spent both on improving wikipedia and the time saved by using wikipedia over other crappier information sources is probablly more than a man-lifetime. Yes death threats are not something to be taken lightly but at the same time lets not forget the huge scale and significance of what we have built here. Plugwash 21:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one saves a life, it is as if he or she has saved the entire world. -Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 37a 204.52.215.107 21:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Simply put, a single human life is worth more than every Wikipedia article combined" is a quote that I would agree with. Your utilitarian views don't necessarily reflect anyone else's on this one...--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 02:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  let us not devalue the project