|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Feb 29, 2016 22:06:49 GMT
If information recently posted on WO's (entirely public) general discussion board is true (so much for their sekret forum being for things you'd rather Google didn't scrape), then WP user L.B. (won't name them here, for the same reasons) has evidently committed suicide, having been drawn into a spiral of despair by her treatment at the hands of other Wikipedians, and worse, the WMF had been alerted about her mental state beforehand. It seems she was put through the usual wringer at AN/I etc, being subjected to topic bans after a series of mock-trials, where, as we all know, it's not what you did or what you say in your defence that counts, only what your reputation is and who you're friends are. I've surmised this is what might have caused it after a quick perusal of her contributions and a few talk page messages, in particular this one (easily found by simply following links posted in their own thread by a Wikipedian!). I cannot confirm it right now, as to do so with some certainty would take many hours research, running downs diffs and putting all the convos together. What's remarkable though is that the chatterboxes on WO's thread don't even appear to even be making a start on this. An investigation to confirm this hypothesis seems far from their minds, in favour of generic condolences and stating the bloody obvious - that the environment on WP is so hostile that a suicide is the entirely plausible worst case scenario. It seems they're not remotely interested in chasing this down to establish exactly what happened to possibly lead to a suicide here, in case it has really happened and journalists might be looking for info right now. Indeed, their Dear Leader seems more interested in having a meta-debate with some of the less popular users about whether or not the WMF is legally liable in such scenarios. Worse, he seems to have also implied that it's not actually possible for the sort of situations that occur on AN/I to drive normal people to contemplate suicide. Words fail me. I have some idea this opinion might have its origin in his anal region. It should be obvious to any serious critic that the way areas like AN/I operate are so fucked up, so biased towards the tactics of confrontation and social pressurization, that literally anyone could be driven to the edge if exposed for long enough (or even if given a harsh enough experience in a short time) - this smacks to me of the very sort of ignorance that leads to victim blaming in suicide cases. Depressingly, the only people who have even posted in the thread on the specific subject of possible causes, are KingsIndian and Anroth - both totally immersed Wikipedians - who I have no doubt would try to feed any journalist who might PM them for more info some PR BS. Sorry if that sounds harsh, I suspect at least KI wouldn't do that intentionally, it's just that this is what they are, they wouldn't be able to help themselves if having to choose between whether this was a tragic but unavoidable accident, or if it was a systemic failing of the website they are addicted to. KingsIndian is even being given a free pass for saying something as monumentally stupid as "But WMF is not equipped to deal with serious issues like this" - everyone here knows what the WMF can do, given what information they possess about even pseudonymous accounts, and every man and his dog can probably figure out that stuff like this is not likely to be a helpful response. Blocking is a ridiculous strategy, not least as it does not stop the person reading Wikipedia, and doesn't stop others from commenting about them, or taking actions that might affect them. The WMF has enough staff and enough tech to put in place an effective harm reduction strategy, well beyond what the community or admins could achieve on their own, until such time as they are sure the threat is not real, or the person has got proper help. Worse, the posts of Anroth have been completely ignored, despite him making it pretty obvious that he would not be surprised if she has killed herself. WTF? This is a Wikipedian, talking about another Wikipedian, with whom he has sufficient knowledge that he is able to give a full rundown of her supposed flaws, and has been monitoring someone he suspects of being her on another website. And no WO member is giving him any shit at all (there's a modded out section, but it appears this may have been due to a mis-reading of his comments, which could be read as claiming the condolences on her talk page are undeserved). Even worse, if that is even possible - also posting in the thread is one particularly notorious Wikipedia admin, Black Kite, who has regularly dished out beatings at AN/I - nobody has bothered to call him out for posting this: "Having some knowledge of Lucia Black, there is certainly a (slim) possibility that this is the case." That case being that she has simply faked her own death, as Eagle has bizarrely put forward as something someone would actually do, just to stop the reputation of your account being smeared after whatever it is happened that caused you to be blocked (although at least someone else has had the sense to point out this would be pointless, unless one planned a miraculous resurrection of the account at a later date). At this point, not only does it appear that nobody on WO is busting a gut to nail down the direct causes/actors involved, if this is a real suicide, they don't even seem to have noticed that at least two people on their forum, Anroth and Black Kite, might have been direct participants in the conflicts which could have led to it (I don't allege they caused it, I'm saying they were on the scene at one point or another, and thus would qualify as material witnesses at best) They don't even give the likes of Carcharoth, who didn't know anything about the case at all, any shit for simply hanging around on WO to add to the meta-discussion, rather than being on Wikipedia to do their utmost to establish the facts, or at the very least figure out how, as immersed Wikipedians, they were unaware that one of their peers was this depressed. It's odd to say the least for Carcharoth to be hanging around relaying how such things were handled in his time, and that it's got better nowadays - is an evident failure better? Bearing in mind this is pretty much the very definition of a problem on WP where being nearly good at coping with it, is never good enough. Just about the only good thing coming out of the thread is the release of some pertinent emails from the person who tried to report it to the WMF. Their official response, posted on WP, is fucked up to say the least. But on this issue, WO is just fulfilling their usual role of simply echoing discussions that are happening on WP, while throwing in the odd pithy comment on WO, as if it somehow cuts the WMF to the bone. A decade of experience shows that it does not. There appears to be no active effort on WO to be putting these emails and the response into context on WO, for swift and easy consumption by the sort of people who the WMF cannot simply brush off - i.e., reporters. They're happy to take the tried and failed route of attempting to talk to them on their own patch. As of now, they are already two-brush offs down that line, I wonder how many more it will take before they refocus? I swear to God, how much more proof is needed that WO has completely lost the plot? |
|
|
|
Post by Flip Flopped on Mar 1, 2016 5:10:36 GMT
I haven't read that WO thread. Your commentary is insightful. I wonder if you'd consider researching it further. Sounds like potential blog post material.
Does the WMF even contact such people to refer them to crisis lines? That would be the sensible response.
Philippe's block message lacks empathy, as if he's done too many such blocks to be fazed anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Mar 1, 2016 14:19:00 GMT
I'll defeintely look further - WO is still compete disinterested in doing anything like that, instead preferring to ponder the likelihood it was an empty threat. This is in their public forum, where they have mentioned her by name, and which is discoverable easily from WP, not least because their members are mentioning it there, in the apparent hope someone from the WMF will post, which they obviously won't.
With only eleven messages of condolence on WP, it's pretty obvious most there think its not true either - I've seen more people post messages when one of the scummier editors on WP does a diva quit.
I'm also perplexed as to why nobody on WP (or their representatives on WO) has thought to even ask the IP user how they know she has died - their own message indicates they know such an announcement carries little weight coming from a random IP. Are the WPians so shit scared of being thought insensitive, or so obsessive about privacy, that they would deliberately ignore the flaws in their site which mean nobody knows if this isn't just a sick troll, and the user in question may be completely unaware and could return at any moment and see these condolences! More to the point, are the WMF doing anything to verify this claim?
|
|
|
|
Post by ericbarbour on Mar 1, 2016 21:40:38 GMT
Just love how Hex removed something and said Same as Wikipedia. Which BTW, as far as I can figure out, is not discussing this poor woman's fate at all, anywhere. (Except in an obscure AN thread noted below.) That WO thread is evidently the only way we will ever know what happened. I'm maintaining an article on the book wiki about Wikipedia suicides. We don't have very many known examples, because most of them are carefully covered up as WP:OFFICE actions (or whatever justification they now use to hush up suicide scandals). There are several noticeboard threads/arguments about Ms. Black, from 2013 until recently. She did in fact love to argue about manga/anime subjects of little importance. But I can't figure out what triggered the suicide. She appears to be yet another person who needed professional help, not Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive269#Lucia_Black_Topic_Ban_Review en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=651002807#Request_to_site_ban_per_user.27s_personal_requesten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#User:Lucia_Black en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive266#Proposal_to_remove_the_topic_ban_of_Lucia_Black_from_Japanese_entertainment_topics en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#Lucia_Black_proposal I should also note the AN thread where they are discussing Lucia's suicide and how it should have been handled. And as usual in such circumstances, therein we have WMF employee Maggie Dennis openly prevaricating and dodging responsibility. As she usually does in extreme cases. I'm told this is typical of the Objectivist/Randite attitude towards suicide, and would be expected if Jimbo were running the show. Apparently he doesn't even need to know about these scandals anymore---the WMF has a toady who spews the party line for him..... |
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Mar 1, 2016 21:59:25 GMT
No surprise to see scummy WP admin Beeblebrox also take the position that it's nobody else's fault if Wikipedia users kill themselves and seem to cite Wikipedia as the direct cause.
How....convenient. Is anyone on WO checking if Beeb ever interacted with her? No. Of course not.
WO's official line appears to be that actually investigating what happened is disrespectful to the family. It's all fucked up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strelnikov on Mar 2, 2016 1:49:13 GMT
All we have is the word of an IP address that "L. B." killed herself. If a young woman killed herself over Wikipedia, that's a tragedy. Conversely, if it was a delusional WBer who decided that their account was a character and she needed to "die" to "escape" Wikipedia, then we have a sad, stupid farce. If we want the truth, we're going to have to dig it out somehow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flip Flopped on Mar 2, 2016 3:25:38 GMT
All we have is the word of an IP address that "L. B." killed herself. If a young woman killed herself over Wikipedia, that's a tragedy. Conversely, if it was a delusional WBer who decided that their account was a character and she needed to "die" to "escape" Wikipedia, then we have a sad, stupid farce. If we want the truth, we're going to have to dig it out somehow. I have no doubt the environment at WP is capable of pushing someone over the edge. I think finding out the truth is a public service. The public needs to know the dangers of editing WP, especially for vulnerable persons of many kinds. Suicide is terrible for remaining family members and very hard on friends. Understanding and preventing suicide is a public duty. Not all family tragedies can or should be left behind closed doors. Of course, I don't think the family should be contacted. If this person died, the death will almost assuredly be noted in an American newspaper. The WMF is apparently terrible at handling people who may be suicidal. I base that on what Ms. Dennis, Beaudette, and that engineering PhD "emergency response" person stated and/or did. It's correct that an editor who has brought up possible suicide should be blocked for some period of time. Of course, it's best to first reach out to such people to encourage them to ask for a voluntary break "block." The length of time for the block could either vary according to circumstances or be a set length so staff and volunteers know what to expect. The WMF's Terms of Service should cover users who bring up suicide in such scenarios because this is a predictable problem on large publicly editable websites. The WMF can and should improve their response towards possibly suicidal people. There are plenty of websites that have regular contact with possibly suicidal people. This problem can be handled with care and savoir faire. Such a dire situation requires that. I'm guessing that English Wikipedia's public resource page for situations involving possibly suicidal people has missed obvious resources that other large websites rely on. My understanding is that WMF staff who deal with possibly suicidal contributors have no best practices manual (cheat sheet) for dealing with these situations. Apparently someone (I forget who, Ms. Dennis maybe?) approached the WMF's Human Resources office to ask about whether writing up a recommended response would be allowed. What risk are they trying to minimize by not having a manualized protocol? Ms. Dennis indicated that the WMF constructed their response procedure with the FBI. The FBI is far from the only resource to consult on a problem like this, especially when your website is global. In fact, I would not choose the FBI as my main advice resource for dealing with suicidal people on any large website. I would, however, have an FBI liaison to work with because their assistance will inevitably be required: They can help the WMF locate and communicate with local law enforcement, who may be confused since dealing with online suicide threats is an emerging problem for the police, unlike muggings. I certainly hope the FBI is better able to locate the correct U.S. local law enforcement agency than the WMF would be on their own. Having similar liaisons for various parts of the globe would be prudent. There are better agencies than the FBI for helping possibly suicidal people in Europe for example. |
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Mar 2, 2016 12:59:13 GMT
No way should blocking even be considered. To a suicidal WPian, this will definitely be received negatively. The desired procedure is simple:
1. Actively engage, in a professional manner (I.e. using a trained counsellor - establish a relationship with charities if the WMF aren't willing to pay for this vital service)
2. Ensure they are not being further distressed by WP or WPians, through wp:office actions if necessary
3. Establish a private channel of communication
4. Ensure they have ongoing professional support, if step 3 gives you cause to believe the threat is credible
5. If the threat is not deemed credible, use further counselling to ensure the user regains some perspective regarding the complete insignificance of WP, and advice them of wikibreak enforcer tools etc.
6. Periodically review their future activities
The WMF has all the technical and monetary resources to handle what is after all a pretty rare occurrence in the grand scheme of number of active users of their website.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flip Flopped on Mar 2, 2016 15:29:17 GMT
No way should blocking even be considered. To a suicidal WPian, this will definitely be received negatively. The desired procedure is simple: 1. Actively engage, in a professional manner (I.e. using a trained counsellor - establish a relationship with charities if the WMF aren't willing to pay for this vital service) 2. Ensure they are not being further distressed by WP or WPians, through wp:office actions if necessary 3. Establish a private channel of communication 4. Ensure they have ongoing professional support, if step 3 gives you cause to believe the threat is credible 5. If the threat is not deemed credible, use further counselling to ensure the user regains some perspective regarding the complete insignificance of WP, and advice them of wikibreak enforcer tools etc. 6. Periodically review their future activities The WMF has all the technical and monetary resources to handle what is after all a pretty rare occurrence in the grand scheme of number of active users of their website. This is a terrible recommendation that no crisis response line would endorse. The assessment of whether a suicidal person may be an imminent threat to herself or himself comes only from: 1. Law enforcement personnel 2. Mental health professionals 3. ERs 4. Crisis lines trained to deal with possibly suicidal people. All possibly suicidal people are credible threats because the average time between a thought of suicide and an actual suicide attempt is 5 to 15 minutes. Impulsiveness and violence correlate strongly with successful suicide attempts. This is why doctors who have deep pockets and/or substantial malpractice insurance will usually refer people with suicidal ideation to the ER. Those doctors don't want to be sued. Social workers, who often earn far less than doctors and who have less beefy malpractice insurance, are more often more willing to explore whether imminent danger exists with a possibly suicidal person. Social workers rightly believe they are less likely to be sued if the person kills herself or himself, since their pockets aren't as deep as most doctors. The first order of business when a person indicates they are possibly suicidal is to get them to stop anything that is upsetting them and do something else. It is impossible to "fix" the world around the possibly suicidal person. Nobody can control anybody but themselves. It's not about catering to the possibly suicidal person while the world around them walks on eggshells. Possibly suicidal people do not have brains that are functioning in rational ways. (The exception might be some people who may be considering assisted suicide in the face of deteriorating health of a very extreme nature, but even then some of that population reconsiders suicide when provided with mental health support.) Given that a possibly suicidal person's brain is not thinking clearly, someone with a functioning brain and training has to help lead them through a safe thinking process. If a crisis line worker assesses the situation as having any degree of imminent risk, they make no bones about telling a possibly suicidal person that they need to either voluntarily choose to go to a hospital, choose to call 911, or the crisis line worker will call 911. There are no other options. In that situation the crisis line worker will not explore that possibly suicidal person's feelings or environmental stressors because the worker has determined an actual risk is present. Any risk, no matter how small, is far too much risk when death by suicide is the possible outcome. If the possibly suicidal person forces the crisis line worker to call 911, the worker will continue to speak empathetically with the person until the police arrive. That may sound callous, but it's the method that saves lives. It is also necessary to block a possibly suicidal person to prevent collateral damage. Have you ever been able to hear or read a suicidal person actually commit suicide? You do not want to witness such a thing as a helpless bystander. If one cannot locate that person to have the police intervene, anyone reading what the person committing suicide types on WP would likely be traumatized. Imagine the feelings of desperation and powerlessness you would experience. Even trained people find such episodes distressing, naturally. No crisis support website I know of deviates in any way from the protocol outlined above. The risk is too great. |
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Mar 2, 2016 19:02:16 GMT
Establish communication with a professional (such as a crisis line worker - hence my suggestion to tie-in with charities), and act on it by for example calling 911 if they asses it as credible, is exactly what I advocate. But I have no problem in believing some threats are not credible - but I certainly don't advocate not taking them seriously until it's established that there is no threat.
As for blocking, I just don't see it. Do Facebook advise blocking suicidal people? If WP were to automatically block people who have said they feel suicidal, then imho they are increasing the risk, not decreasing it. And I say that precisely because people with suicidal thoughts are not thinking rationally - no rational person is going to kill themselves if they get blocked from WP.
The inherent assumption in blocking a suicidal user is that they will react rationally - what's to say they won't react by creating a sock, and going straight back to the situation that was causing distress? That's the usual response to a block, and since it is doomed to failure, it cannot be called rational. But it happens so often on WP it's unreal. Better to engage with them as an unblocked user, safe in the knowledge that no damage can occur while you're monitoring them - and the quicker they can be moved to a private medium, the better.
Blocking a user also has the effect of restricting them to just their talk page (assuming we're not talking about TP removal block, which would be disastrous imho), which in many situations will not feel like a safe place for the person who is under duress - you must appreciate how this dynamic often plays out on WP in bullying/harassment situations. And while it may seem small, even leaving open the option of them being able to contact someone else on their talk page, might make all the difference in making them feel less isolated.
As for doing it to avoid causing trauma in observers, I seriously doubt that benefit outweighs the risk to the person involved. And the sort of people who would be distressed by seeing that are unlikely to be participating on WP anyway, given all the other nasty shit that happens on a routine basis. You can't protect everybody on WP from real life - the logical extension to this desire is to not even tell anyone that a WP user has committed suicide - since it's obvious that the first thing anyone does on learning that news, is look for what they posted last. Crisis line workers might not like the fact they cannot save everybody, but they quite obviously go into the role with the realization that it can, and probably will, happen at some point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flip Flopped on Mar 2, 2016 20:48:27 GMT
Establish communication with a professional (such as a crisis line worker - hence my suggestion to tie-in with charities), and act on it by for example calling 911 if they asses it as credible, is exactly what I advocate. But I have no problem in believing some threats are not credible - but I certainly don't advocate not taking them seriously until it's established that there is no threat. It's impossible for anyone to establish there is "no threat." Even in monitored psych wards some people manage to kill themselves. That's why there are padded cells and straps for people deemed too high a risk (sad though). Law enforcement and the other entities I listed above can only establish whether there are grounds for taking away someone's liberty or encourage the person to seek a higher level of care ASAP (e.g., go to the ER voluntarily or contact any mental health worker they already see). No crisis line or online crisis support I know of in the U.S. would consent to work with a WMF staff person as a proxy on behalf of a possibly suicidal person. A crisis support volunteer might possibly provide emotional support and advice to a WMF staffer. That advice will always be to determine if law enforcement can be contacted and for the WMF staffer to encourage the possibly suicidal person to seek help at an ER or through a crisis line/online crisis support. Crisis line calls are confidential, so the WMF will not be told if the possibly suicidal person did contact a crisis line. It's possible a three-way call could be set up between a WMF staff member, a crisis line worker, and a possibly suicidal person. However, a crisis line is extraordinarily unlikely to suggest something like that because they want to preserve confidentiality and deal directly, and privately, with the possibly suicidal person. As for blocking, I just don't see it. Do Facebook advise blocking suicidal people? If WP were to automatically block people who have said they feel suicidal, then imho they are increasing the risk, not decreasing it. And I say that precisely because people with suicidal thoughts are not thinking rationally - no rational person is going to kill themselves if they get blocked from WP. I have no idea what Facebook does. I do know what large, global online support websites do. They remove the post mentioning suicide from sight and refer the possibly suicidal person for help from an ER. If the possibly suicidal person's location is known, local law enforcement may be called. It's important to understand the relationship between crisis lines and local law enforcement. Nobody on a phone or computer can assess a possibly suicidal person as thoroughly as a trained police officer in person. Your assumption is that someone on a website, like a Facebook staffer or WMF staffer, can mitigate the risk a suicidal person poses to himself or herself. This is not true. Even live-in family members cannot control the risk a possibly suicidal person poses. Leaving a possibly suicidal person unblocked on WP keeps them focused on the source of their desperation, rage, or other strong negative emotion. The safest choice is to convince the person to voluntarily take a break. If that cannot be accomplished, then a break has to be forced on the possibly suicidal person, not only for their sake, but for the sake of any onlookers and any WMF staffer dealing with the possibly suicidal person. The inherent assumption in blocking a suicidal user is that they will react rationally - what's to say they won't react by creating a sock, and going straight back to the situation that was causing distress? That's the usual response to a block, and since it is doomed to failure, it cannot be called rational. But it happens so often on WP it's unreal. Better to engage with them as an unblocked user, safe in the knowledge that no damage can occur while you're monitoring them - and the quicker they can be moved to a private medium, the better. It's usually trivially easy to block a new sock of a user who has just been blocked. I don't know how to create an untraceable sock and most WMF project contributors don't either. Of course, damage can occur while a well-meaning busybody attempts to monitor a potentially suicidal person via computer. The suicidal person can give a blow-by-blow of their act of suicide over the course of hours. Then they can die, even in the midst of typing. Again, only padded rooms and straps mitigate all risk of suicide (barbaric though that technique is and, of course, it should almost never be necessary). Blocking a user also has the effect of restricting them to just their talk page (assuming we're not talking about TP removal block, which would be disastrous imho), which in many situations will not feel like a safe place for the person who is under duress - you must appreciate how this dynamic often plays out on WP in bullying/harassment situations. And while it may seem small, even leaving open the option of them being able to contact someone else on their talk page, might make all the difference in making them feel less isolated. The last thing a possibly suicidal WP editor should be focusing on is WP. They should either de-stress safely or contact one of the entities I listed in my last post. I understand bullying and harassment on WP. That is why a possibly suicidal person is definitely better off away from it, even if the person doesn't understand that himself or herself. A possibly suicidal person has a real, non-digital life to sort out. Feeling suicidal and having suicidal thought is the brain's red-flag that one needs help ASAP and that something big needs to change in your life. As for doing it to avoid causing trauma in observers, I seriously doubt that benefit outweighs the risk to the person involved. And the sort of people who would be distressed by seeing that are unlikely to be participating on WP anyway, given all the other nasty shit that happens on a routine basis. You can't protect everybody on WP from real life - the logical extension to this desire is to not even tell anyone that a WP user has committed suicide - since it's obvious that the first thing anyone does on learning that news, is look for what they posted last. Crisis line workers might not like the fact they cannot save everybody, but they quite obviously go into the role with the realization that it can, and probably will, happen at some point. Again, nobody can eliminate the risk a suicidal person poses to himself or herself. Once someone's brain is in that state, the priority is to help them re-focus on getting the help they need, not typing on Wikipedia. I assume the WMF does cover-up suicides as much as they can. As a critic, I want that issue exposed so the public realizes the risk, especially to some vulnerable populations. I encourage you to ask a police officer, doctor, mental health professional, or crisis line volunteer how it feels to have a person commit suicide on their watch. These things haunt people for the rest of their lives, no matter what profession or volunteer activity they chose. If anyone pulled any "I'm feeling suicidal" stunt here, I have no doubt Barbour, Strelnikov, or Mutineer would cut through the crap ASAP. It easily fits in the rule about being kind to members here, since it is kind to yourself to not kill yourself. It also has nothing to do with criticising Wikipedia. WS site management would not engage in any long, drawn-out discussion with the person, especially not in public. |
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Mar 2, 2016 21:35:08 GMT
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. In my procedure, the crisis worker is the professional who engages with the user from the very outset, with law enforcement/ER involvement coming thereafter if deemed appropriate. There is no assessment/advice by the WMF. And quite obviously, the priority is to get them away from WP into a private channel - that's my procedure also.
I merely mentioned continuing to allow them to contact others as a counter-point to the effect of blocking. At this point I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the usefulness of blocks.
While I confess I didn't consider confidentiality as much as I probably should have, and had envisaged WMF being involved in some of the steps, my procedure can still be followed even if we were to say that everything past the point of the professional being alerted to a suicidal user (which triggers Step 1) should be treated as confidential.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flip Flopped on Mar 3, 2016 0:37:37 GMT
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. In my procedure, the crisis worker is the professional who engages with the user from the very outset, with law enforcement/ER involvement coming thereafter if deemed appropriate. There is no assessment/advice by the WMF. And quite obviously, the priority is to get them away from WP into a private channel - that's my procedure also. I merely mentioned continuing to allow them to contact others as a counter-point to the effect of blocking. At this point I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the usefulness of blocks. While I confess I didn't consider confidentiality as much as I probably should have, and had envisaged WMF being involved in some of the steps, my procedure can still be followed even if we were to say that everything past the point of the professional being alerted to a suicidal user (which triggers Step 1) should be treated as confidential. In your procedure how do you get a professional crisis counselor in contact with the possibly suicidal person who edits WP? Also, a large proportion of possibly suicidal people refuse any contact with a trained crisis counselor. What would your procedure entail in that circumstance? Possibly suicidal people usually return to their senses at some point; a minority are chronically suicidal. Blocking a person in that state of mind allows them to preserve their dignity once they come back from the brink. People who are not thinking rationally are apt to write irrational things. Things they would never say or think in a million years when in their right mind. As we know, everything written on WP is freely licensed for any use by anyone in perpetuity. If you lost it completely and were raving, would you want it preserved and even re-used for the rest of your life by someone who saved your ravings before they were rev deleted or oversighted? Some people edit WP under their real name. My preference would be to link the person to a list of international suicide prevention resources in a message that pops up when they try to log in. If the person was currently logged in I'd block them until they confirmed they'd received the international suicide prevention resources. I would also provide him/her with an actually responsive contact person to unblock him/her once he/she understands he/she cannot write about killing himself/herself on Wikipedia. I'd oversight the edit(s) about killing himself/herself, all responses that reference it (to the extent possible since things end up in many places on WP), and finally I'd oversight the block notice once the person confirmed they'd received the list of international suicide prevention resources. I'd have a standard block log entry that doesn't sound too bad, something mild like "Required to contact WMF Office." To avoid the time consuming process of having to call the police on many possibly-but-not-actually-immanently-suicidal people, I wouldn't ask the person questions because I wouldn't want to collect information about such people. The more information I have about the person, the greater my duty to act would be. This would make me more involved in their life in a way likely to be awkward to both parties. Informing local law enforcement means the police would show up at a lot of people's houses even after the suicidal ideation had passed and they'd gone to bed to get a much needed night of rest. Welfare checks are useful, but no agency like the WMF wants to become a welfare check nanny. It's time consuming. |
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Mar 3, 2016 12:56:20 GMT
They'd be informed though the emergency report protocol. I definitely think you have misunderstood my procedure - it is not passive, allowing the user to do whatever they wish - if necessary it would involve deletions of exactly the sort you propose, as the office actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flip Flopped on Mar 3, 2016 13:37:05 GMT
They'd be informed though the emergency report protocol. I definitely think you have misunderstood my procedure - it is not passive, allowing the user to do whatever they wish - if necessary it would involve deletions of exactly the sort you propose, as the office actions. If I understand your procedure, you would have the WMF contact a crisis support line. Once that occurs, the crisis support line will not then consent to contact a possibly suicidal WP editor. Calling a suicide prevention line is voluntary for a number of reasons. Crisis lines do not act on reports from third parties like the WMF except to advise the third party reporter to contact local law enforcement where the possibly suicidal WP editor lives (if the WMF believes the possibly suicidal person may be in imminent danger), or, to recommend the WMF refer the person to a suicide prevention line. Alternatively, the crisis support line may tell the WMF that the crisis support line will contact local law enforcement where the possibly suicidal person lives, if the suicide prevention line believes that person may be in imminent danger. I wouldn't be surprised if the crisis line also helped the WMF staffer explore their choices in the situation. If so, blocking the WP editor might be an option the suicide prevention line would discuss with the WMF staffer. Another method they might discuss is having the WMF staffer stay in constant contact with the possibly suicidal person after law enforcement has been called until law enforcement arrives at the person's location. You can try it yourself. Call a suicide prevention line and ask what they would do if you had the phone number of a possibly suicidal person you met online. If they agree to discuss their protocol, they will explain that they would never agree to phone the hypothetical possibly suicidal person. They will give you three options: Phone the police where the possibly suicidal person lives, refer the person to a suicide prevention crisis line, or convince the person to go to an ER voluntarily right away. From a legal liability standpoint the more the WMF intervenes and talks with a possibly suicidal person, the more they risk a catastrophe falling on their doorstep. The best thing to do with a possibly suicidal person with whom you don't have a personal relationship is to get out of the way and give them three options: police will be called on them, they will go to the ER right away, or the possibly suicidal person will call a suicide prevention crisis line or use a suicide prevention online support chat. Leaving such situations to professionals and trained people is best. |
|
