Re the Threats of Violence page...

It's an essay in name only.  That was a workaround for getting what was actually being done by admins and senior editors documented and standardized after some intractable philosophical fights over what "should be" poisoned the well on normal process.

It is policy in every meaningful sense.

(I wrote the first and many subsequent drafts)

George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 30, 2015, at 9:55 AM, "Daniel and Elizabeth Case" <> wrote:

>The litmus test is whether what they have said is not only 'offensive' but, 'grossly offensive'. Wikipedia's internal >systems and thresholds would make no difference to the authorities in the UK. It would be interesting to see what the >public fall-out would be if Wikipedia decided that no action should be taken against X whilst the UK jailed him / her.

Well, there’s this page:
which never became policy (probably because, it seems, people discussed it more in light of threats of suicide rather than threats to others). But it may be time to revisit that.
I assume, in the hypothetical you’re talking about, the question would be whether someone was punished in real life for threats made on-wiki that resulted in no action from the ArbCom? Or from anyone? In the former, yes, the public fallout would be interesting; in the latter, it would depend on whether anyone with the power to take action knew.
I do recall some past cases, once described on the now-deleted “List of banned users”, where the trigger for the formal ban (as opposed to the never-lifted indefinite block) was a user threatening violence against someone (usually via their latest sock).
Of course, if someone were to be incarcerated in real life as a result of their on-wiki threats, any action after that other than blocking the account to prevent some hacker from making use of it would really be superfluous.
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: