Wikipedia talk:Responding to threats of harm/Archive 1

src: darksouls3.wiki.fextralife.com

Video Wikipedia talk:Responding to threats of harm/Archive 1

Merge

There is significant overlap with Wikipedia:Potentially suicidal users. I suggest merging and upgrading the result to guideline or policy. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the high overlap probably calls for a merger, although I think a title along the lines of "threats of violence" encompasses more scenarios than "threats of suicide," if we go that route (which seems to suggest merging to here, rather than from here). - Luna Santin (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that would be the case. We need to explain to the editors of the article that we like their work so much we want to generalize it. That page may need to be trimmed. The goal should be to make it sleek enough that it can be promoted to policy. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In order to reduce the WP:BEANS component when I wrote a related essay I referred to an even broader subject: real world emergencies. Durova^Charge! 22:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse merge (which way, doesn't matter to me), and possibly suggest renaming to something such as Durova suggested. Perhaps "Responding to threats of harm", or some such, which would cover both self-harm, and threats to harm others. While I generally agree that the majority of such posts are likely nothing more than vandalism, I also think that we are not in a position to assess the validity of them, nor should we be expected to, or held accountable for such actions. Any threat should be treated seriously, passed on to local authorities if possible, and let them deal with the validity of the threat. Ariel?Gold 13:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse the merge and feel that responding to threats of harm as the merged name is fine. SorryGuy  Talk  06:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Responding to threats of harm/Archive 1

Wikipedia:ThreatsOfViolence

There's a new proposal at the above link, intended to become policy if at all possible - some work is required to sift through the intentions of this, and that page to separate what fits best as policy, and what as essay - there's also WP:FIRE to consider, as well as the pages linked above.

I think there's some important material here, but we do seem to have some unnecessary redundancy, and I think one essay, and one policy will probably best cover all aspects of this sensitive area.... all help is most welcome! - Privatemusings (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

src: divinityoriginalsin2.wiki.fextralife.com

Closing the merge

There's been a long-standing merge proposal between Wikipedia:Potentially suicidal users and Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. I've drafted a merged page at User:Luna Santin/sandbox (permalink). Feel free to modify the page or to suggest any desired changes. If there's no feedback within a reasonable timeframe, I'll complete the merge. I'll be posting this identical notice to both talk pages, and will try to check both for comments; realistically, though, it may help if we direct comments to Wikipedia talk:Responding to threats of harm, where old discussion on the merge proposal took place. - Luna Santin (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Waited long enough, perhaps? I've gone ahead with the merge. - Luna Santin (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have done a history merge on the two pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Well done

As the user who started the failed policy attempt, I'm very happy to see that we finally have a great essay about this subject! I have now dealt with several suicide threat incidents on Wikipedia. Please, if you see such a comment and don't want to or can't handle it yourself for some reason please send me a email and I will respond as quickly as I can. For general reference I general use this post as a temple and modify it according to the situation. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

src: beyondforeignness.org

New policy threats and suicide - please comment

I've proposed a new policy at the village pump. See WP:VPP#Policy proposal on dealing with threats of violence and suicide.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

src: darksouls3.wiki.fextralife.com

Username vs. IP threats

If the person making the threat is logged in, then there's nothing we can really do, can we? Evil saltine (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that in that case, a CheckUser provides the IP address directly to the authorities (either after contacting them, or after someone else has initially contacted them.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

src: i.4pcdn.org

update

I've updated the WMF emergency contact section. The previous version could have been interpreted to discourage contacting us outside business hours. The new version makes it clear that the WMF will respond to reports at the emergency contact address at all hours, not just business hours. Also, I'm about to clarify it further that by "contacting the WMF" the best route is through that emergency email; other methods will simply be delay the report from reaching the proper people.=>SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Block user, lock pages

"Potentially suicidal or violent users may be further aggravated by further interaction, whether by discussions or by misguided attempts to help."

I'm not sure whether this is the best advice we can give. I would speculate that suicides happen mainly because people are desperate and isolated. People who communicate, in whatever form, are probably less likely to terminate their own life. Even users who threaten to harm others are less likely to actually do so as long as they are busy typing comments on Wikipedia. As this is a real life issue, I'd suggest that the Foundation asks for professional advice on what general guidelines we should follow in such situations.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we (WMF) should get professional advice on this. Also I would like some disclosure on how the foundation handles these things. Is it 24x7? One is reminded of recent incidents in the news where passing the problem to the supposed responsible authority within an organisation proved "sub-optimal" for all concerned. Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Feedback from WMF is very positive about the temporal and geographical coverage. Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

src: pbs.twimg.com

More concise

---

I think this page should be more concise, since in the event of a real suicide threat, every second counts. I think it should read just like that and remove the rest of the content on the page, just a concise template. If there is no opposition, I will go about doing that edit. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I do oppose that. Because of the need for conciseness, that template is there. However, the rest of the page is needed to elaborate on the rationale behind and the details beyond what the template says. For just one example, as an administrator, that last sentence ("Consider blocking...") is not really helpful for me. I want the extra stuff below to tell me what to consider when making that decision. I will note that the "Contact authorities" subsections are all somewhat redundant and can be taken out, if the Wikimedia foundation will really take care of that for us once we e-mail them.--Aervanath (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what I noticed too. I also found that the sections with "Note: The Wikimedia Foundation will handle this when you notify them of a threat of harm." are not necessary because the "Contact the Wikimedia Foundation" section already covers that, if the Wikimedia Foundation already has got everything in those sections covered why do we need to have it written there? Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Just putting this up here, but I also don't like this idea, and have the intent to comment, just trying to find the time. Hopefully this weekend at the latest. -- DQ (?l??) 04:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

can we improve the response

I'd like to comment on this section and the one above it, by saying that yes, every moment counts, and yes threats need to be taken seriously. Blocking the user is as much a response which can have an adverse effect as talking to the user. The more appropriate thing to do is to direct those threats to trained people who are online. There are plenty of people trained in suicide counselling, and tools can be made, to alert them audibly, so they can leave their computers on just in case, and tools so that what the editor is typing is not made public, but just the same, the user is not deliberately given the impression that nobody cares and they are indeed unwanted and worthless to the wikipedia community. An instant response by suicide counsellors is a lot better than the delay, inaction, or inability to find the person by authorities.

The present suicide template sounds like a customer service helpline "Hello, we are sorry to hear about how you are feeling at this time. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not able to provide counselling services or professional referrals." People in a normal state of mind get frustrated and despair when they encounter such scripted hollow sentiments over the phone or net, so I do not feel this is the best that the community or the foundation can come up with. Penyulap ? 22:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and one more thing, we can bet their lives that this template will not get improved for months if not years, if ever. That's wikipedia for you. Penyulap ? 20:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Again the WMF response is that generally blocking the suicidal/self harming is not a good idea. I have changed the page accordingly. Moreover it seems clear that anyone threatening physical harm to others should be immediately blocked. Since we have such a mix of people I would not say "indefinitely blocked and banned" since one person's deaththreat is another's gentle chiding. Rich Farmbrough, 12:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Looks a lot better now, a good move in the right direction which heads off the most serious problems, hopefully improvements to handling suicide matters on wiki can go further at some point. Penyulap ? 19:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Proposed addition of a link

Wikipedia:Requests for oversight is an official policy that says, in part that a "true emergency" can be reported to the Stewards over IRC and Meta says that Stewards should get involved in emergencies. I suggest adding the following link to the article where it suggests that users contact an admin over IRC: #wikimedia-stewards ^connectAndrew³²⁷ 00:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

src: www.esa.org

Block email or not?

"Threats of violence to others should be met with blocking, generally including user talk pages. "

Should administrators block the email function as well? If not, an explicit statement saying so would be helpful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please be mindful WP:SUICIDE also redirected to this essay, should en.wp Admins block people who need help?--AldNon^Ucallin?? 13:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It still does redirect here. I'm not sure what the best solution is. Perhaps a hat-note directed at such individuals which links to a list of international suicide telephone numbers? Hopefully this is a very rare occurrence. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Err, yes it's rare occurrence, but perhaps we should make exception for suicide cases, although I'm not so sure Wikipedian working in capacity of volunteers can help with this. I don't know what should we do about this, perhaps more opinion from other users, until then, please do not block people who making a suicide threat, those people need help.--AldNon^Ucallin?? 22:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Essay

I restored the essay template that was in the essay until it was removed in 2012. It is an essay, and it should be identified as such, which is standard for all essays.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe this is the real process, as described in this article. --Elitre (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer that the essay template - if it must be on the page - not be at the top. This page contains critical suggestions for actual life-and-death emergencies - I think those should have priority in the viewer's sight, not a template explaining that this is an essay. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Two responses. Elitre, you say it's a "process". We have to identify it somehow; how do we do that? Philippe (WMF), it's standard to put it at the top of the page. If we were going to put it somewhere else, where would it go? Another idea is not to use the standard template. We could perhaps put in a footnote. How does that sit with people?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be totally fine with a footnote. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I put the footnote inside the hatnote at the top - seemed like a good place for it. I used the identical language from the essay template. Is the placement of the footnote good? I wouldn't object to small tweaks to the language in the footnote if you want to make it more clear what this page is. We're not obligated to use the standard language as long as the identification of the page is not misleading.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

src: i1.wp.com

Contact an administrator privately

I recently came across a threat and have followed the steps from this page, but found that some aspects of this process may not be clear/easy especially for new users or people who are unfamiliar with wikipedia. I saw the threat in the text of an article, and I had never read this page before. I happen to have used the prefix WP: before, and thought emergency would make sense. But I don't think most people would think to do this. When contacting an administrator privately, I thought to look at the Special:RecentChanges because someone there would be more likely to be online and respond. I was able to find an administrator from the userboxes on their userpages. I don't think most people would know/think to do this.

• Finding WP:Emergency should be easier, and more instinctive.

Would it make sense to have a link to this page on Wikipedia:Contact us? and perhaps on Emergency?

• Instructions on WP:Emergency to contact an Administrator should be more explicit, and address the potentially time-sensitive nature of the situation.

Is there/could there be a way to for someone to use WP:Emergency to contact user with administrator rights, who has made an edit within the last few minutes, so they don't have to search amongst non-administrator users or have to post to a noticeboard (not-private) and wait for a response?WyattAlex (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Question

How does blocking the user attempting to commit suicide help in preventing his/her death? I think it will just make the user more desperate as they come here in the hope that someone will listen to them. IMO, admins should refrain from blocking users threatening suicide or blanking their user pages, while notifying WMF as soon as possible. Any ideas? Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 05:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the text suggesting that suicidal users should be blocked back in 2012. The current text leaves the matter to admin discretion. It's clear that threats of any kind, can't override editorial integrity in the long run. If someone is just having a weep on their talk page, at the other end of the spectrum, blocking would be churlish to say the least. (However we do a good line in churlishness sometimes.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC).

src: i2.wp.com

18 U.S. Code § 875 - Interstate communications

Why does the Wikimedia foundation not make it explicit when you create an account that you agree your edits are contributions covered under the title 18 § 875 - Interstate communications clause of the United States code of law, and you agree by creating a user id that "any threat to injure the person of another" is punishable by law. There could be a click "I agree" box to continue. It would certainly make it easier to stop the threats of harm from people like this guy. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, in a way they do. With every edit you make you agree to the Terms of Use ("By clicking the "Save page" button ..."). The Terms of Use states, You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on Wikimedia Projects, so for your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws. For clarity, applicable law includes at least the laws of the United States of America. Mike V o Talk 19:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And you know the law applies whether you agree to it or not. That's one reason I oppose ToS bloat itemising all the illegal things you are not allowed to do - not just on WMF ToS but on many others. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC).

reporting other violence

While I find the article good the title covers more than the content.

The article is about Responding to threats of SELFharm while there are unfortunedly also other kinds of harm.

I was reading Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Quick CheckUser requests and that linked to this page while I guess it should have linked to another page (but which one?)

I am not sure what the best solution is (a hat note, renaming ,something else) and I am also not sure about other links, and did not want to do a bold edit to the article but I lets talk on (small) improvements. WillemienH (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Report about deleting on Czech wikipedia

Analogic article on Czech wikipedia was deleted by pseudoconsensus. See deleted discusion. Twice deleted by User:Zdenekk2, after protest on Administrators' noticeboard. --Kusurija (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Kusurija, Having had need of the advice on this page I'm sorry to hear that. BUT, this wiki has its ways of doing things, and the Czech wiki have theirs. You'll need to start a discussion on cs: somewhere. Bazj (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Obvious trolling

Should one email emergency@wikimedia.org any claims of self-harm even if one considers it obvious trolling? If this is the case, would you please add this to the Treat all claims seriously section? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim1138, thanks for asking. The phrasing on the page currently ("Though many threats are empty or hoaxes, Wikipedians are not in position to make such evaluations, and should treat all such threats seriously and as an emergency") does ask that contributors forward threats even if they doubt their veracity. So, I think the answer is "yes":)

However, we should emphasize that there does need to be a clear threat. For instance, someone might place the word "DEATH" on their userpage. This is not a clear threat, while "I will bring Death to (x)" or "I am choosing death tonight" would be. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@PEarley (WMF): My chief concern what it sounded like the anon might have been given some drug w/o their knowledge. Thanks for the reply. Do you think "trolling" should be added to "empty or hoaxes"? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138:, we have a "yo" template now? Cool! As this is a community page, improvements and edits are open to all. We in the Support and Safety team of course would have strong opinions about edits that endanger a clear understanding of the protocol around these situations, but I don't think your suggestion falls into that category :). Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"Experts recommend urging..."

We currently have

Experts recommend urging such individuals to seek professional care immediately, typically at a hospital emergency department.

But here's the thing: the rest of this page tells us not to try to play therapist, rather email emergency@ and leave it to them. I wonder if we should remove or modify this. EEng 02:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting point EEng. Maybe we could have this at the start (getting rid of all of the lead and replacing it with this): "Although experts recommend urging potentially violent or suicidal individuals to seek professional care (typically at a hospital emergency department), Wikipedia editors receive no special training in dealing with such individuals. Nobody on Wikipedia is under any obligation to deal with threats of harm, although should a user wish to do so, here are the recommended steps". That may be a little clumsily worded, feel free to make it more concise - I am typing purely what comes to mind. Patient Zero^talk 11:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

What? Now the Patient Zeroes are running the asylum?^[FBDB] EEng 13:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Haha, good one EEng :-). Do you have any thoughts on the wording or suggestions to improve it? If you are in agreement I'll change the wording per WP:BOLD I guess. Patient Zero^talk 14:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, didn't you notice? [1]. EEng 15:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't EEng - thank you very much! :-) Patient Zero^talk 08:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

'Threat of harm' template

I recently moved the hatnote on "Threats of harm" to {{Threat of harm}}, so that it could be used elsewhere as well as here. I have been twice reverted, the first time apparently because it's better to have "two things to edit instead of one" the second apparently on the grounds that "you created template and set this "two copies" up".

Neither of those reasons is justification for a revert; and neither is justification for keeping the text locally rather than in a template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23 says, "just two things to edit instead of one" and Pigsonthewing says, "Absolutely not necessary to keep two or more copies of same notice". This confuses me because it seems both users prefer to have one copy instead of multiple. I also prefer one copy.

I think that the base text should be in one place, {{Threat of harm}}. If it is in that template then it can be reused anywhere. That is not to limit anyone from making forks if they must. This does seem like good text to be able to post elsewhere and it is nice to have one standard version of it.

Bbb23 - can you say something more about how you feel about standard text in a template like this? I fail to follow your objection. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Originally, the suicide project had a link to the Threat of harm page. Andy decided to change that to the text we're discussing. Because it would then be in two places, Andy created a template to be transcluded in both places. From one perspective that may be reasonable, but there's no doubt that the Threat of harm page is far more important than the suicide project. A link from the project was good enough. It doesn't require that the same "nutshell" text be reproduced. If the template remains in both places, then when one wants to edit the Threat of harm page and change both the top text and other text, one has to do it in two places. If someone else disagrees with the changes, they have to undo in both places. The argument that if it is in a template it "can be reused anywhere" is pure speculation. First, why does this text need to be copied all over the encyclopedia? It's reserved for a very narrow and important scenario. Second, even if it is absolutely needed to use it in another place in the future, at that time we can consider putting the text in a template. Doing it pre-emptively makes no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"can be reused anywhere" is not "pure speculation", it is indisputable fact. And the template is already used elsewhere, as can easily be checked, so your at that time is now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I fail to understand what is happening here. It seems that it is proposed that text appear in at least two places -

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Death/Suicide task force
• Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm

To standardize the text, it is proposed to copy it into a template, so that the text actually is in one place only. Is it not preferable to just have the text in one place, and not in multiple places?

Or is it argued that this text should not be permitted to appear outside the context of this one page? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Standardizing text and copying that text into a template is logical. The objections really, to that, don't make sense to me. Our policies, templates, etc are in a sense, best when created preemptively. The time to create something is not in the middle of a problematic situation but as we see those situations developing or even before. (As an aside: Its actually quite problematic to develop any kind of Wikipedia "guides" for dealing with the encyclopedia once embroiled in a situation since as we all know neutrality easily disappears at that point and a more all encompassing vision can be lacking.) The template if fine. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC))

Per the above consensus, I've restored the template. I've also updated it to take into account the recent changes made here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Calling 911 (or whatever your local flavor is)

I hate to point this out, but the instructions as they stand could be interpreted as discouraging someone from calling their local emergency #, as if emailing WMF is always the only thing to do no matter what. I wonder if we should add something like If you believe that you are in danger of immediate physical harm, contact your local authorities. Or is that overworrying? EEng 14:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: Going off of this related meta page which has the exact wording If you are injured or in immediate danger, call your local emergency services (usually by dialing 112 to 911 depending on your country), I think it would be worth adding -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I added If you are in immediate danger, call your local emergency services. I think we have to leave people to know their local emergency number, and if someone thinks they should email emergency@wmf when they're actually injured, then they deserve to die anyway. EEng 18:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Treat all claims seriously or not?

Treat all claims seriously

This address is for true emergencies only

These statements contradict each other. If I'm to treat all threats seriously, then I should email the emergency address even for vague unsubstantiated claims. But if I should reserve the address for true emergencies, then I obviously shouldn't.

Also, please provide an email address for non-emergencies. I don't have time to search for an administrator's email address, or download an IRC client. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The context shows true emergency is intended as the opposite of non-emergency rather than the opposite of hoax emergency. It could, and should, be better phrased though.

For non-emergencies, why would you want to email an admin? What's wrong with one of the many notice boards such as WP:ANI? Cabayi (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Abusive usage of E-Mail

Hello. How does Wikipedia deal with people, who abusively utilise the given address, which is supposed only to be used for emergencies? --84.147.38.84 (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• @84.147.38.84: this geolocation (Northern Rhine-Westphalia) and this ISP (Deutsche Telecom) have reminded me a banned notorious long-term COI sockmaster who has been disrupting/vandalising WP since at least 2011. Editing on wiktionary is an another similarity. Anyway, i am assuming good faith, in case you are a different person. This is from WP:OUTING and may be helpful: "...Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict of interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy)." 115.79.137.39 (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not hacking anybody. Telekom is located and a major ISP here. And I can't see any previous edits from my IP address. Northern Rhineland has 17 million inhabitants. It's definitely possible that somebody out of them hacked Wikipedia. --84.147.38.84 (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia