Passing of editor Lucia Black

[Hex]

An anonymous message has appeared on the talk page of an editor called Lucia Black (T-C-L) stating that she passed away three weeks ago. Her user page contains this worrying statement:

I had decided to leave Wikipedia. I enjoyed editing articles that i had a strong fondness of. My main goal was to make my favorite subject (Japan and Japanese media) well-sourced and recognized by those who rely on Wikipedia. I have made much progress.

Its just not a healthy environment. I can never truly advance and it has affected me more than some realize. I'm just no longer mentally stable, nor am i wanting to really stay alive at this point. I know Wikipedia only thing can do is block me and send the proper authorities to prevent my inevitable expiration. I'm just done. I don't think people realize how impact this place can be until they fall in the exact same situation.

If it is true that this editor has passed away, then my condolences to her family and friends. If she was having mental health issues that were exacerbated by interactions on Wikipedia - which appear to have been problematic - then that is very sad indeed. However, if her user name was a pseudonym then we may never really know.

[Anroth]

I am a bit skeptical if only because on an anime/gaming forum I frequent, an editor I highly suspected to be Lucia Black has been active a lot in the last few weeks. (And she apparently passed away 3 weeks ago)

Maybe one of the expert sleuths here could take a look elsewhere on the Web.

It wouldn't surprise me though. LB was capable of great work, however she was completely mentally incapable of any form of conflict resolution which is why she ended up being topic banned repeatedly from multiple areas. She was right, everyone else was wrong. Conflict on wikipedia clearly did upset her and stress her out, but that was a symptom of her underlying issues, not a cause. She was also prone to exaggerating so it was difficult to deal with her when she got her back up...

[snowskarlet]

I suppose I take it as valid that an administrator has protected her user page to admins only with a stark statement Editor has deceased. As valid as anything can be in our 'truth is never final' Internet world.

I did not ever cross paths with her on Wiki, but I left a condolence because I understand how Wikipedia can be a lot to endure if one is not rock solid in personal stability.

[Jaguar]

I emailed her twice after her last edit. I told her that I suffered from the same sort of experiences and that I fully understood what she was going through, but I never received a reply. I'm still in total shock to find out that she's gone. I thought that she was misunderstood by a lot of people, and she didn't get treated with the amount of respect that she should have got. I asked her if she wanted to collaborate with me on something, but the next day she left. I waited too long.

[Lightbreather]

I can't find her among the members, but I thought she had posted here before.

[Kumioko]

It's always a shame when an editor passes, even ones with rocky histories. I am sure it happens a lot more than we realize though and I would suspect that a number of other editors who suddenly stop editing may have done so due to death. We may never know of course.

[Rational Observer]

I emailed her twice after her last edit. I told her that I suffered from the same sort of experiences and that I fully understood what she was going through, but I never received a reply. I'm still in total shock to find out that she's gone. I thought that she was misunderstood by a lot of people, and she didn't get treated with the amount of respect that she should have got. I asked her if she wanted to collaborate with me on something, but the next day she left. I waited too long.

What a sad situation. I wonder how many others the bullies have driven away or worse. That's why I think it's so important to stand up to them, as the people they harass might not be able to take the relentless punishment the sock hunters dish out.

[Kumioko]

I emailed her twice after her last edit. I told her that I suffered from the same sort of experiences and that I fully understood what she was going through, but I never received a reply. I'm still in total shock to find out that she's gone. I thought that she was misunderstood by a lot of people, and she didn't get treated with the amount of respect that she should have got. I asked her if she wanted to collaborate with me on something, but the next day she left. I waited too long.

What a sad situation. I wonder how many others the bullies have driven away or worse. That's why I think it's so important to stand up to them, as the people they harass might not be able to take the relentless punishment the sock hunters dish out.

I agree. Bullies have driven a countless number of edits away. No one works in a hostile work environment, let alone as volunteers. I would say that in the majority of cases we probably don't know about those who edit and die. They jsut stop editing with no further information.

[Poetlister]

It's always a shame when an editor passes, even ones with rocky histories. I am sure it happens a lot more than we realize though and I would suspect that a number of other editors who suddenly stop editing may have done so due to death. We may never know of course.

Given how many editors there are, some must die every year, even though the average age is quite low. Also, I know someone who stopped editing because he unfortunately has cancer and decided he had better things to do with his time. If he's cured, maybe he'll return; I don't know.

[Anroth]

The recent suicide comments on-wiki were directly related to her getting embroiled (and blocked) over another petty content dispute. If you want to go listen to how wonderful they were, her talkpage is doing good business at the moment....

[Hex]

Bickering following an absurd misunderstanding removed. This is not the time or place.

[Zoloft]

Let's try not to fight in a topic about a dead editor, OK?

A person's death is like a candle going out for the last time in our world.
Our light and warmth are diminished, and the dark creeps a bit closer.
Try to bring new light, and remember the past light with tenderness and warmth.

Edit: Thank you Hex.

[MysteriousStranger]

A part of me hopes someone gets to the bottom of this, just for closure's sake. Another part of me hopes that, whether she truly died or simply wished to vanish, Ms. Black's privacy is forever maintained.

[Kumioko]

A part of me hopes someone gets to the bottom of this, just for closure's sake. Another part of me hopes that, whether she truly died or simply wished to vanish, Ms. Black's privacy is forever maintained.

I agree, it would be terrible if they really did die but on the other hand, arguably, it would be equally terrible (though in a different way of course) if they didn't and lied about it.

[Salvidrim]

Let me try to paint a clearer picture of what happened, from my perspective:

------------------------------------

After the initial suicide threats on Jan. 14th, Ferret e-mailed me

To: salvidrim@salvidrim.net
Subject: Wikipedia email
From: (redacted)

I assume you are watching her, but this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =699803558

I don't recall the details but aren't things like this required to be reported up the chain?

And I e-mailed the WMF Emergency contact.

Hi WMF,

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =699803558

Lucia has been going through a very rough pass, she's always had a bit of a confrontational attitude which rubs people the wrong way, this morning she's been told off by a few editors (me included) and clearly isn't reacting well, now saying she's suicidal.

Thank you for all the help you can provide.
~Ben / Salvidrim

It was forwarded internally but me and Ferret were left CC'ed:

Took a look at this.
Sounds of a very low credibility.

--
Haitham

Kalliope replied to us:

Hey Ben,

Thank you for letting us know . We will take a look.

Warm regards,

K.

Ferret replied with more info:

Subject: Re: Suicidal editor
From: (redacted)
To: hshammaa@wikimedia.org
CC: ktsouroupidou@wikimedia.org; salvidrim@salvidrim.net; emergency@wikimedia.org

WMF,

I am not sure whether I should report each and every one of these, but for caution's sake... Lucia has made two more posts on this topic, even directly asking us to follow WP:Suicide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =699822411



And again here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =699826799


Thanks,

Ferret

Then Philippe, former Community Advocacy director, blocked Lucia, and I followed-up the e-mail thread:

FWIW, Philippe (you know who he is, former WMF director) blocked Lucia for a week for disruptive editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =699951004

She reverted the block notice already.

~Ben/Salv

Then Maggie pretty much closed the case on the WMF's side:

Thanks for the update, Ben.


Sometimes this has happened in the past, when editors are talking suicide. There can be real benefit in getting them away from the projects, especially if the projects are the source of their distress.


I'd love to have better resources for people suffering in this way. Right now, I think the best we have is what's linked in the suicide response template: http://www.iasp.info/resources/Crisis_Centres


Best,


Maggie

_______________________________
Now today, I resurrected the e-mail thread:

FYI, an IP came along and declared Lucia Black deceased:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... _to_inform

I’m CC’ing Philippe as well. Just in case any of you would like to follow up on this case.

~ Benoit / Salvidrim

Maggie replied laconically:

Thank you, Ben, for the update.


Best,


Maggie

Philippe followed up with a more human reaction.

============

EDIT: Admins, out of respect, if you want to split this from the thread about Lucia to a thread about the WMF's response to suicide threats, do whatever you think is best. Some concerns have started being raised on AN as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ard#WP:RIP

[Kumioko]

And this response from teh WMF surprises us how? I mean most of us have figured out that the majority of the WMF doesn't really care about what goes on in the projects. Most of us know that editors are just expendable commodities...but damn! Again as sad as this is, it's hardly the first time that the toxic environment of ENWP has caused this to happen and I would guess it's a lot more common than people think. The common Wikipedia editor is a certain mentality of individual and often times they edit because they are socially awkward in real life. When they are treated poorly on ENWP, or some other site, it can be to much.

[Hex]

Thanks, Salvidrim, that's invaluable.

Took a look at this.
Sounds of a very low credibility.

--
Haitham

How the fuck is this person an emergency contact for suicide threat reports?

[Kingsindian]

The underlying issue seems to be the topic ban. One appeal was declined here in November 2014. There was another appeal in March 2015, which was also declined. The editor then requested a break in May 2015. The editor returned in December 2015 and made another appeal, which was also declined.

[Kumioko]

The underlying issue seems to be the topic ban. One appeal was declined here in November 2014. There was another appeal in March 2015, which was also declined. The editor then requested a break in May 2015. The editor returned in December 2015 and made another appeal, which was also declined.

Of course they were declined. It's exceptionally rare for them not to be. In my ten years on Wikipedia almost no one is allowed back and even with those who are it's only after multiple years away.

That's why it's such a joke when they say come back in 6 months or a year. Because in almost 100% of the cases they just tell you to come back in another year and then another in the hopes you will stop asking.

[Jaguar]

I'm appalled with WMF. They should have done more to help. I can only assume that they won't be replaced with anybody competent any time soon.

[Carcharoth]

Thanks, Salvidrim, that's invaluable.

Took a look at this.
Sounds of a very low credibility.

--
Haitham

How the fuck is this person an emergency contact for suicide threat reports?

While agreeing with what Greg said, I agree with what you've said here as well. While on ArbCom, this sort of thing happened a couple of time. Sometimes it was passed to the WMF to deal with, sometimes individual arbitrators made calls to the appropriate authorities if they were in the right time zone/country. It requires some level of awareness and judgement (and training helps) to make what you always hope will be the right call. It is never an easy thing to deal with.

[LynnWysong]

Thanks, Salvidrim, that's invaluable.

Took a look at this.
Sounds of a very low credibility.

--
Haitham

How the fuck is this person an emergency contact for suicide threat reports?

While agreeing with what Greg said, I agree with what you've said here as well. While on ArbCom, this sort of thing happened a couple of time. Sometimes it was passed to the WMF to deal with, sometimes individual arbitrators made calls to the appropriate authorities if they were in the right time zone/country. It requires some level of awareness and judgement (and training helps) to make what you always hope will be the right call. It is never an easy thing to deal with.

That there isn't some kind of policy in place giving direction on how to handle this is nuts. Ideally, there should be a PAID (or contracted) and TRAINED person to whom issues like this are forwarded, and they take it from there. If that person isn't available, there should be alternate contacts with the same training.

[Vigilant]

Thanks, Salvidrim, that's invaluable.

Took a look at this.
Sounds of a very low credibility.

--
Haitham

How the fuck is this person an emergency contact for suicide threat reports?

While agreeing with what Greg said, I agree with what you've said here as well. While on ArbCom, this sort of thing happened a couple of time. Sometimes it was passed to the WMF to deal with, sometimes individual arbitrators made calls to the appropriate authorities if they were in the right time zone/country. It requires some level of awareness and judgement (and training helps) to make what you always hope will be the right call. It is never an easy thing to deal with.

Any organization that lets untrained volunteers deal with suicidal people is, collectively, dumber than a box of hammers.

[eagle]

A part of me hopes someone gets to the bottom of this, just for closure's sake. Another part of me hopes that, whether she truly died or simply wished to vanish, Ms. Black's privacy is forever maintained.

I agree, it would be terrible if they really did die but on the other hand, arguably, it would be equally terrible (though in a different way of course) if they didn't and lied about it.

The obvious advantage of reporting your own death (particularly if you are a banned user), is to avoid your enemies continuing to create "sockpuppet" edits and then attribute them back to you under WP:DUCK to prevent you from ever coming back. Your enemies will not waste their time if they think that you are dead.

[LynnWysong]

A part of me hopes someone gets to the bottom of this, just for closure's sake. Another part of me hopes that, whether she truly died or simply wished to vanish, Ms. Black's privacy is forever maintained.

I agree, it would be terrible if they really did die but on the other hand, arguably, it would be equally terrible (though in a different way of course) if they didn't and lied about it.

The obvious advantage of reporting your own death (particularly if you are a banned user), is to avoid your enemies continuing to create "sockpuppet" edits and then attribute them back to you under WP:DUCK to prevent you from every coming back. Your enemies will not waste their time if they think that you are dead.

Soooo, if you later want to come back do you have to a pull a Mark Twain: "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated?"

[Vigilant]

Thanks, Salvidrim, that's invaluable.

Took a look at this.
Sounds of a very low credibility.

--
Haitham

How the fuck is this person an emergency contact for suicide threat reports?

While agreeing with what Greg said, I agree with what you've said here as well. While on ArbCom, this sort of thing happened a couple of time. Sometimes it was passed to the WMF to deal with, sometimes individual arbitrators made calls to the appropriate authorities if they were in the right time zone/country. It requires some level of awareness and judgement (and training helps) to make what you always hope will be the right call. It is never an easy thing to deal with.

Any organization that lets untrained volunteers deal with suicidal people is, collectively, dumber than a box of hammers.

Haitham Shammaa is not a volunteer, he is a full-time employee of the WMF.
"(...) and in 2014 I shifted my focus to work on understanding and supporting the health of Wikimedia communities."

The bolded part shows volunteers dealing with this stuff.

On our erstwhile WMF expert,

About me

I joined WMF in 2012 after completing my Ph.D. in precision engineering and briefly working as a researcher in geometric modeling

Let's just leave it as 'untrained' and move on.

[Carcharoth]

For how it evolved from volunteers to a push for the WMF to have an emergency contact and people at their end dealing with it, look at the editing history here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

e.g. this edit in October 2010:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =367373202

[LynnWysong]

For how it evolved from volunteers to a push for the WMF to have an emergency contact and people at their end dealing with it, look at the editing history here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

e.g. this edit in October 2010:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =367373202

That policy mixes apples and oranges. Threats of suicide should be handled differently than threats to others.

[Vigilant]

For how it evolved from volunteers to a push for the WMF to have an emergency contact and people at their end dealing with it, look at the editing history here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

e.g. this edit in October 2010:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =367373202

That policy mixes apples and oranges. Threats of suicide should be handled differently than threats to others.

And never by people with no training.

[LynnWysong]

For how it evolved from volunteers to a push for the WMF to have an emergency contact and people at their end dealing with it, look at the editing history here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

e.g. this edit in October 2010:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =367373202

That policy mixes apples and oranges. Threats of suicide should be handled differently than threats to others.

And never by people with no training.

I don't agree with admins doing anything without specific instructions from a professional, except maybe putting a note after the threat acknowledging it, saying that it is being dealt with and asking other editors to refrain from responding and from discussing it elsewhere. Don't remove the threat, don't block the editor, don't prevent them from editing their user space. Any of those things could be interpreted as a hostile act to someone who could be pushed over the edge by it.

[Carcharoth]

One of the reasons this kind of thing doesn't come up very often is that such things in general are handled much better now than they used to be (which is not to say that it was handled well in this particular case). What do you (i.e. the WMF) do if there is no way to contact the editor or find out where they are editing from?

[Kumioko]

The underlying issue seems to be the topic ban. One appeal was declined here in November 2014. There was another appeal in March 2015, which was also declined. The editor then requested a break in May 2015. The editor returned in December 2015 and made another appeal, which was also declined.

Of course they were declined. It's exceptionally rare for them not to be. In my ten years on Wikipedia almost no one is allowed back and even with those who are it's only after multiple years away.

That's why it's such a joke when they say come back in 6 months or a year. Because in almost 100% of the cases they just tell you to come back in another year and then another in the hopes you will stop asking.

You appear to be talking about site bans and indefinite blocks, Kumioko. What is being discussed here is topic bans, which are different. It might be rare as well for those to be lifted, but with those if someone shows they can edit responsibly, and shows they understand why they were topic banned, it is possible to get topic bans lifted. That doesn't appear to have been the case here. On the topic of the thread, I was not familiar with this editor, in what is clearly a very sad case. I'd like to echo what Zoloft said above about candles going out - more tenderness and warmth never goes amiss at such times.

Regardless of the type of ban, it's still rare for them to be lifted. Take for example the myriad of long expired and uneeded topic bans currently in place and you can see that. Most were overcome by events long ago, some of the editors haven't edited in years and some of the topic bans have been replaced by other things like edit filters.

Just going by the list of personal sanctions at this Wikipedia:Editing restrictions (T-H-L), anyone can see a list of them that are unneeded. Maybe if the admins and arbitrators on the site were a little more compassionate and considerate to other editors instead of making it into a battleground where they had absolute say, no oversight and no accountability then things like this and the general losing of editors in general would be reduced.

[Black Kite]

A part of me hopes someone gets to the bottom of this, just for closure's sake. Another part of me hopes that, whether she truly died or simply wished to vanish, Ms. Black's privacy is forever maintained.

I agree, it would be terrible if they really did die but on the other hand, arguably, it would be equally terrible (though in a different way of course) if they didn't and lied about it.

The obvious advantage of reporting your own death (particularly if you are a banned user), is to avoid your enemies continuing to create "sockpuppet" edits and then attribute them back to you under WP:DUCK to prevent you from ever coming back. Your enemies will not waste their time if they think that you are dead.

Having some knowledge of Lucia Black, there is certainly a (slim) possibility that this is the case. Indeed, I hope that it is, because then we don't have a deceased editor. Regardless of whether it is or not, however ...

Took a look at this.
Sounds of a very low credibility.
--
Haitham

... this is absolutely fucking shocking. How is this person still in a job?

[Salvidrim]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... mergencies

WMF's handling of emergencies

User:Salvidrim!, it was brought to my attention that you have indicated that I "pretty much closed the case" of Lucia Black with my final note to you. (Basically, your thread on Wikipediocracy was mailed to me.) This seems to be based on the mistaken belief that we will report back to you what actions we have taken. Our work on emergencies does not include reporting back to our contacts on the outcome of investigations. Our emergency policy does not permit me to disclose how individual reports are handled to you, to any other volunteer, and to most staff (outside of the emergency response team). There are privacy factors at play. But the work that happens on them is begun by, not concluded with, contact with the reporter.

As I noted here in our blog (http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/22/wi ... se-system/), we have a reporting system developed in coordination with the FBI. We pass along issues brought to our attention (including suicide and threats against others) to law enforcement according to that protocol. They take the situations from there.

I'm concerned that your misunderstanding of when and how a case is closed may mislead others into failing to report on the mistaken assumption that because they do not know what we do on any one case, we do nothing with them. And this may result in issues not being reported to us...or to law enforcement through us...at all.

Some situations reported to us meet our protocol. Others do not. We report everything that does, with an explicit instruction to err on the side of caution - when in doubt of whether a situation meets the reporting criteria, we report, and the FBI makes the final call. I know of specific cases where this system has led to swift intervention from law enforcement. It would be a shame to lose any avenue of help because of misinformation. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 2:01 pm, Today (UTC−5)

[Black Kite]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... mergencies

WMF's handling of emergencies

User:Salvidrim!, it was brought to my attention that you have indicated that I "pretty much closed the case" of Lucia Black with my final note to you. (Basically, your thread on Wikipediocracy was mailed to me.) This seems to be based on the mistaken belief that we will report back to you what actions we have taken. Our work on emergencies does not include reporting back to our contacts on the outcome of investigations. Our emergency policy does not permit me to disclose how individual reports are handled to you, to any other volunteer, and to most staff (outside of the emergency response team). There are privacy factors at play. But the work that happens on them is begun by, not concluded with, contact with the reporter.

As I noted here in our blog (http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/22/wi ... se-system/), we have a reporting system developed in coordination with the FBI. We pass along issues brought to our attention (including suicide and threats against others) to law enforcement according to that protocol. They take the situations from there.

I'm concerned that your misunderstanding of when and how a case is closed may mislead others into failing to report on the mistaken assumption that because they do not know what we do on any one case, we do nothing with them. And this may result in issues not being reported to us...or to law enforcement through us...at all.

Some situations reported to us meet our protocol. Others do not. We report everything that does, with an explicit instruction to err on the side of caution - when in doubt of whether a situation meets the reporting criteria, we report, and the FBI makes the final call. I know of specific cases where this system has led to swift intervention from law enforcement. It would be a shame to lose any avenue of help because of misinformation. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 2:01 pm, Today (UTC−5)

What about the quote above, though? Thanks for posting the timeline here Salvidrim.

[Hex]

Took a look at this.
Sounds of a very low credibility.
--
Haitham

... this is absolutely fucking shocking. How is this person still in a job?

The can of worms this horrific accidentally-cc'ed email has opened is huge. I've asked Maggie Dennis a lot of questions.

[Hex]

I've split posts to another thread for discussion of the technicalities of suing the WMF. No more here, please.

[Salvidrim]

Took a look at this.
Sounds of a very low credibility.
--
Haitham

... this is absolutely fucking shocking. How is this person still in a job?

The can of worms this horrific accidentally-cc'ed email has opened is huge. I've asked Maggie Dennis a lot of questions.

I'm not necessarily convinced that it was accidental... my outlook says both Haitham's and Kalliope's e-mail were received at the same time (within a minute), but I suppose it's possible Haitham was reply-all'ing to Kalliope's e-mail and not the other way around.

[Demonology]

The can of worms this horrific accidentally-cc'ed email has opened is huge. I've asked Maggie Dennis a lot of questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =707613221

Hello, User:Scott. While he is our newest emergency responder, Haitham has proven a valuable part of the team. I have all confidence in his ability to assess posts against the criteria. He is not a suicide hotline responder; none of us are. I want to be very clear here that we do not provide mental health support to people experiencing mental health crises. We have no training for this. In fact, our policy is that if a suicidal contributor reaches out directly to one of us, the person who receives that report escalates it to emergency for handling by others on the emergency response team just as community does public posts. While we have been looking into the possibility of expanding resources to offer people who are undergoing mental health crises (I spoke to HR recently about whether we could put together material for people), that is not part of our current role. Instead, the law enforcement personnel we contact deploy local, properly trained assistance.

All Support & Safety staff- and only Support & Safety staff- work on emergencies; a few others on staff (including legal representatives) receive reports and may be called upon to assist as necessary and as permitted by the Privacy Policy in follow-ups from law enforcement. Emergency staff are trained in the protocols that we developed with the FBI, including a period of one-on-one observation without action, where they are partnered with an existing staff person. Our process requires multiple team members to look at every threat for the specific reporting criteria. We have been advised against publishing this protocol to avoid its being misused (sadly, people do misuse any access paths to law enforcement), but as I have previously noted one of those factors is specificity. For example, a statement that "I am going to kill myself" meets reporting criteria for credibility on the specificity factor. A claim "I feel suicidal" does not, by itself. Other factors weigh in, and these factors are evaluated as part of the process. It is part of our job to share our thoughts on how the diff we are given fits into criteria. In this case, the conversation was begun accidentally on the email out. The evaluation does not end with reviewing that diff. It is the first point.

On average, we deal with one report every three days (in practice, for some reason they come in clusters). --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

[Kumioko]

The can of worms this horrific accidentally-cc'ed email has opened is huge. I've asked Maggie Dennis a lot of questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =707613221

Hello, User:Scott. While he is our newest emergency responder, Haitham has proven a valuable part of the team. I have all confidence in his ability to assess posts against the criteria. He is not a suicide hotline responder; none of us are. I want to be very clear here that we do not provide mental health support to people experiencing mental health crises. We have no training for this. In fact, our policy is that if a suicidal contributor reaches out directly to one of us, the person who receives that report escalates it to emergency for handling by others on the emergency response team just as community does public posts. While we have been looking into the possibility of expanding resources to offer people who are undergoing mental health crises (I spoke to HR recently about whether we could put together material for people), that is not part of our current role. Instead, the law enforcement personnel we contact deploy local, properly trained assistance.

All Support & Safety staff- and only Support & Safety staff- work on emergencies; a few others on staff (including legal representatives) receive reports and may be called upon to assist as necessary and as permitted by the Privacy Policy in follow-ups from law enforcement. Emergency staff are trained in the protocols that we developed with the FBI, including a period of one-on-one observation without action, where they are partnered with an existing staff person. Our process requires multiple team members to look at every threat for the specific reporting criteria. We have been advised against publishing this protocol to avoid its being misused (sadly, people do misuse any access paths to law enforcement), but as I have previously noted one of those factors is specificity. For example, a statement that "I am going to kill myself" meets reporting criteria for credibility on the specificity factor. A claim "I feel suicidal" does not, by itself. Other factors weigh in, and these factors are evaluated as part of the process. It is part of our job to share our thoughts on how the diff we are given fits into criteria. In this case, the conversation was begun accidentally on the email out. The evaluation does not end with reviewing that diff. It is the first point.

On average, we deal with one report every three days (in practice, for some reason they come in clusters). --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I generally like Maggie but I have to say I am not really impressed with that statement.

[Rational Observer]

The can of worms this horrific accidentally-cc'ed email has opened is huge. I've asked Maggie Dennis a lot of questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =707613221

Hello, User:Scott. While he is our newest emergency responder, Haitham has proven a valuable part of the team. I have all confidence in his ability to assess posts against the criteria. He is not a suicide hotline responder; none of us are. I want to be very clear here that we do not provide mental health support to people experiencing mental health crises. We have no training for this. In fact, our policy is that if a suicidal contributor reaches out directly to one of us, the person who receives that report escalates it to emergency for handling by others on the emergency response team just as community does public posts. While we have been looking into the possibility of expanding resources to offer people who are undergoing mental health crises (I spoke to HR recently about whether we could put together material for people), that is not part of our current role. Instead, the law enforcement personnel we contact deploy local, properly trained assistance.

All Support & Safety staff- and only Support & Safety staff- work on emergencies; a few others on staff (including legal representatives) receive reports and may be called upon to assist as necessary and as permitted by the Privacy Policy in follow-ups from law enforcement. Emergency staff are trained in the protocols that we developed with the FBI, including a period of one-on-one observation without action, where they are partnered with an existing staff person. Our process requires multiple team members to look at every threat for the specific reporting criteria. We have been advised against publishing this protocol to avoid its being misused (sadly, people do misuse any access paths to law enforcement), but as I have previously noted one of those factors is specificity. For example, a statement that "I am going to kill myself" meets reporting criteria for credibility on the specificity factor. A claim "I feel suicidal" does not, by itself. Other factors weigh in, and these factors are evaluated as part of the process. It is part of our job to share our thoughts on how the diff we are given fits into criteria. In this case, the conversation was begun accidentally on the email out. The evaluation does not end with reviewing that diff. It is the first point.

On average, we deal with one report every three days (in practice, for some reason they come in clusters). --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I generally like Maggie but I have to say I am not really impressed with that statement.

She appears to be clumsily attempting to differentiate between a credible threat of suicide and mere suicidal ideation. She's correct that the distinction is important, and it helps determine what action WMF should take when this kind of situation arises, which is apparently as often as ten times per month. Wow!

[Black Kite]

The can of worms this horrific accidentally-cc'ed email has opened is huge. I've asked Maggie Dennis a lot of questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =707613221

Hello, User:Scott. While he is our newest emergency responder, Haitham has proven a valuable part of the team. I have all confidence in his ability to assess posts against the criteria. He is not a suicide hotline responder; none of us are. I want to be very clear here that we do not provide mental health support to people experiencing mental health crises. We have no training for this. In fact, our policy is that if a suicidal contributor reaches out directly to one of us, the person who receives that report escalates it to emergency for handling by others on the emergency response team just as community does public posts. While we have been looking into the possibility of expanding resources to offer people who are undergoing mental health crises (I spoke to HR recently about whether we could put together material for people), that is not part of our current role. Instead, the law enforcement personnel we contact deploy local, properly trained assistance.

All Support & Safety staff- and only Support & Safety staff- work on emergencies; a few others on staff (including legal representatives) receive reports and may be called upon to assist as necessary and as permitted by the Privacy Policy in follow-ups from law enforcement. Emergency staff are trained in the protocols that we developed with the FBI, including a period of one-on-one observation without action, where they are partnered with an existing staff person. Our process requires multiple team members to look at every threat for the specific reporting criteria. We have been advised against publishing this protocol to avoid its being misused (sadly, people do misuse any access paths to law enforcement), but as I have previously noted one of those factors is specificity. For example, a statement that "I am going to kill myself" meets reporting criteria for credibility on the specificity factor. A claim "I feel suicidal" does not, by itself. Other factors weigh in, and these factors are evaluated as part of the process. It is part of our job to share our thoughts on how the diff we are given fits into criteria. In this case, the conversation was begun accidentally on the email out. The evaluation does not end with reviewing that diff. It is the first point.

On average, we deal with one report every three days (in practice, for some reason they come in clusters). --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I generally like Maggie but I have to say I am not really impressed with that statement.

She appears to be clumsily attempting to differentiate between a credible threat of suicide and mere suicidal ideation. She's correct that the distinction is important, and it helps determine what action WMF should take when this kind of situation arises, which is apparently as often as ten times per month. Wow!

What is even more concerning about that is that all the research shows that people who say "I am going to kill myself" on any sort of social media are actually less likely to do so (unless they are very specific about it) than those who are voicing severe depression issues which may include suicide. Indeed, the former are far more likely to be purely attention-seeking (although obviously not in all cases). I find it unbelievable that the WMF is so behind with this.

[Hex]

Related thread from 2013: Is Wikipedia ever the cause of suicide (or murder)?

[LynnWysong]

The can of worms this horrific accidentally-cc'ed email has opened is huge. I've asked Maggie Dennis a lot of questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =707613221

Hello, User:Scott. While he is our newest emergency responder, Haitham has proven a valuable part of the team. I have all confidence in his ability to assess posts against the criteria. He is not a suicide hotline responder; none of us are. I want to be very clear here that we do not provide mental health support to people experiencing mental health crises. We have no training for this. In fact, our policy is that if a suicidal contributor reaches out directly to one of us, the person who receives that report escalates it to emergency for handling by others on the emergency response team just as community does public posts. While we have been looking into the possibility of expanding resources to offer people who are undergoing mental health crises (I spoke to HR recently about whether we could put together material for people), that is not part of our current role. Instead, the law enforcement personnel we contact deploy local, properly trained assistance.

All Support & Safety staff- and only Support & Safety staff- work on emergencies; a few others on staff (including legal representatives) receive reports and may be called upon to assist as necessary and as permitted by the Privacy Policy in follow-ups from law enforcement. Emergency staff are trained in the protocols that we developed with the FBI, including a period of one-on-one observation without action, where they are partnered with an existing staff person. Our process requires multiple team members to look at every threat for the specific reporting criteria. We have been advised against publishing this protocol to avoid its being misused (sadly, people do misuse any access paths to law enforcement), but as I have previously noted one of those factors is specificity. For example, a statement that "I am going to kill myself" meets reporting criteria for credibility on the specificity factor. A claim "I feel suicidal" does not, by itself. Other factors weigh in, and these factors are evaluated as part of the process. It is part of our job to share our thoughts on how the diff we are given fits into criteria. In this case, the conversation was begun accidentally on the email out. The evaluation does not end with reviewing that diff. It is the first point.

On average, we deal with one report every three days (in practice, for some reason they come in clusters). --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I generally like Maggie but I have to say I am not really impressed with that statement.

She appears to be clumsily attempting to differentiate between a credible threat of suicide and mere suicidal ideation. She's correct that the distinction is important, and it helps determine what action WMF should take when this kind of situation arises, which is apparently as often as ten times per month. Wow!

What is even more concerning about that is that all the research shows that people who say "I am going to kill myself" on any sort of social media are actually less likely to do so (unless they are very specific about it) than those who are voicing severe depression issues which may include suicide. Indeed, the former are far more likely to be purely attention-seeking (although obviously not in all cases). I find it unbelievable that the WMF is so behind with this.

She implies in the quote that they got their advice from the FBI, but I'm sure that was only for threats to others. I'm a little skeptical that the FBI provided information on dealing with suicidal people.

[Anroth]

(In reply to Black Kite)

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Unlike some I actually have had some training in this (and currently have a wife who suffers from anxiety attacks, depression and suicidal thoughts.) and the *general* case is that people who say I'm going to kill myself are a higher risk than those who just express suicidal thoughts while in a down phase (for whatever reason).

Specifically for social media the reverse seems to be true, as you say and as research shows, that a direct expression of suicide intent is often an attention seeking mechanism rather than genuine intent.

There are theories as to why this is, social media encourages more flamboyant/attention getting behaviour etc, so perhaps the social media direct 'I'm going to kill myself' is the cry for help because that's what social media encourages for people to be heard.

What is unusual is for someone to refer to specific guidelines as either a cry for help OR a genuine threat of action. It would be like a work colleague saying 'this meeting is stressing me out, I think you should follow the HR handbook for dealing with suicidal colleagues.' It's just not likely and not really a credible threat of intent to act.

When people who do have to deal with emergency situations ask 'are they credible', it rarely means 'do i report it or not?', it usually means 'do i report it and leave it to the appropriate authorities, or do I report it and chase every ten minutes, call the local police, known relatives and send someone round'...

[Kingsindian]

There are two threads, and I'm not sure what is what so I will just post here.

I think the WMF acted correctly here. The report was passed up the chain. The editor was blocked (enforced wikibreak I guess), which is a good thing. I suppose they pointed the editor to some kind of professional help. I don't know what else they did, they don't say. But even if they did nothing, I still think it is ok. WMF are not competent/equipped to deal with suicides. It should be done by a professional. Incompetent interventions can make things worse.

The "low credibility" comment is a personal opinion, made internally. FWIW, I also think it is low credibility. The bottom line is that it changed nothing at all - the proper procedures were followed.

[Black Kite]

The "low credibility" comment is a personal opinion, made internally. FWIW, I also think it is low credibility. The bottom line is that it changed nothing at all - the proper procedures were followed.

But this is the point. This wasn't a random IP editor threatening to commit suicide, it was a fairly long standing editor who it was pretty clear had serious issues interacting with other people. Have a look at this diff, and there are many, many more like this. I'd wager my house on the fact that he didn't even look at anything other than the comment itself.

[Kingsindian]

The "low credibility" comment is a personal opinion, made internally. FWIW, I also think it is low credibility. The bottom line is that it changed nothing at all - the proper procedures were followed.

But this is the point. This wasn't a random IP editor threatening to commit suicide, it was a fairly long standing editor who it was pretty clear had serious issues interacting with other people. Have a look at this diff, and there are many, many more like this. I'd wager my house on the fact that he didn't even look at anything other than the comment itself.

I am not sure what your point is. I claimed above that it changed nothing at all. Suppose he had not made the comment. Tell me what would have changed in the emails provided by Salvidrim.

I am not sure what the other diff is supposed to show. That the editor had serious issues interacting with people? Sure. That's why the editor asked for, and received a wikibreak for about 6 months. They returned voluntarily in December 2015.

[Black Kite]

I am not sure what your point is. I claimed above that it changed nothing at all. Suppose he had not made the comment. Tell me what would have changed in the emails provided by Salvidrim.

Probably nothing. But if you're someone charged with looking after the welfare of editors then I'd expect you to at least look at the history of someone claiming to be suicidal. He clearly didn't bother. That's what I'm slightly angry about.

[Kumioko]

Unfortunately, as big a site as Wikipedia is, this is just one of those things we have to deal with sometimes and unfortunately we are not going to stop it every time. Personally this is at least the 3rd one I have seen (and others can probably list more).

The problem I have is this. Everyone knows that the editing environment sucks, is toxic and upsetting to people for a variety of reasons on a widespread level. It's talked about constantly here, on wiki and at the WMF. Yet nothing is done.

I submit that if someone were to start addressing the actual problem, which to me is the sites leadership (admins and functionaries) acting abusively and against policy, then a lot of these problems with anxiety and the toxic environment will work themselves out. It will take some time and patience but it can work. But only if it starts from the top down and only if someone, probably the WMF at this point, is willing enforce policy on the admin corps who are largely exempt from it.

Bullies in the workplace cause unnecessary anxiety and right now we have a number of admins that are nothing more than bullies and that needs to stop.