Talk:Threats of harm

Two minor points

This is a good import from en.wp. Something like this should be centralized. But 2 things to consider before it goes up for future translation. First, maybe it can benefit from a bit of meta-fying, as in simplifying in some places, also looking at similar policy from other projects or language version to make a one standard central policy inclusive of others would be ideal. Second, I'm not sure this should be tagged as an essay. It's advice to editors, a guide of sorts. It might get confusing when 'essay' is translated across other languages. Besides those two minor consideration, this is a good page to have and link across. Theo10011 (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suggested importing to Meta myself, since as a matter of procedure I have had cause to refer to it from more than just Wikipedia. As to Meta-fying it, I asked PiRSquared17 to do it but I'd encourage you to be bold as well and have a go at it. Also, it is an advice page, but I had no idea how else to categorize it as other than "essay" (since there are also a lot of "advice" essays as well like don't be a dick, but on the general those aren't as useful as this). TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Administrators. Meanwhile the Sysops itself is underaged, not sure if this part if going to help.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 11:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I forgot about this. I will try to fix it up a bit soon, if nobody else gets to it. Thanks for suggesting this import. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators versus functionaries

I've changed most of the language on this page from "administrator" to "functionary" because I feel that generally speaking "administrators" as a group might not be reliable in responding to these incidents. I'm about to rewrite the third paragraph as well. "Functionary" here is defined to mean the highest governing body of authority for a local wiki. This generally means an Arbitration Committee (CU and OS) or similar if a local community has one; if there is no ArbCom the responsibility might be deferred to bureaucrats, such as Wikimedia Commons policy designating bureaucrats as community leaders; if there are no bureaucrats the responsibility might then be deferred to administrators. And if there are no local administrators, or administrators are temporary or inactive, the responsibility is ultimately deferred to stewards. Just wondering if this change in language is alright with you guys.

However, as Aldnonymous mentions above, administrators as a class of users might simply be unreliable. They might be the source of the threat, they might be too young to understand it even is a threat and they should follow this procedure and notify WMF, or you see a threat and the administrator might not believe you because you had a dispute with them in the past. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is indeed good, en:wp:COMPETENCE might be also required, usually threats goes to Arbcom, OmbCom, CU and OS rather than normal Administrator, so here my proposal, user doesn't need to be Administrator, to confirm age we can use Identification Noticeboard which means an actual prove the user is not underage and meet the Legal Age requirement, this user who already registered to Identification noticeboard will be in new group membership (not rights, just membership) then properly elected trough voting or polls. (okay I actually got confused a bit, I'll accept more comment about this, I don't know if this idea is good or dumb)--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 03:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TeleComNasSprVen and Aldnonymous: "Functionary" is an English Wikipedia jargon and it isn't (or may not be) shared or known by other Wikimedia communities. P,ease clarify it with a note or replace it with a more descriptive alternative, such as "users holding advanced rights" or similar. --Zerabat (discusión) 02:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legal responsibility

I'm guessing this varies by country, but I added a section as to what "obligations" a volunteer might have to responding to a threat of harm, since some might simply choose not to respond to one at all, or ignore it completely. As far as I know there might be a legal statute in the U.S. requiring reporting threats of harm to others, but not threats of suicide. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would happen if a Wikimedia volunteer spots a threat of harm and does not report immediately, instead preferring that it be Somebody Else's Problem™? Should we condemn such Wikimedians as immoral, or simple just being human and making mistakes? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You probably need to remember all Wikimedians are volunteers, yes indeed these kind of problem are WMF staff problem, with exception if one of wikimedians are actually involved with the threat of harms.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 16:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grotesquely discursive and overdetailed and runs on and on and on and on and on about all kinds of side stuff and irrelevant stuff and other stuff and God knows what

This page is 1000 words, which is 800 words more than someone facing a potential emergency should have to plow through. See [1] for a more appropriate approach. I'm not going to try to fix it myself because meta is such a strange alternative universe. EEng (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]