Wikipedia talk:Responding to threats of harm

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

"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. E Eng 02:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

So basically

Wikipedia's policy on how to respond to threats of suicide (viz. by deleting and blocking) boils down to this. Compy book (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]