Wikipedia talk:Potentially suicidal users

Follow up reports on Wikipedia to document actions taken
One thing missing is that in most cases anyone carrying out these actions has reported back to Wikipedia that the matter has been handled/resolved as far as has been possible, thus avoiding the need for further discussion or action. It might be worth noting that in some cases the suicide notes have been confirmed as hoaxes (well, assuming you believe what the 'hoaxer' told the police). It might also be worth noting that this type of procedure has been applied to other emergency cases, such as death threats, though that might distract from the main point of the page. Carcharoth 00:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking subtleties
Should the bit about blocking include something about disabling e-mail or not? Not sure what has been done here in the past, or what the default is. Carcharoth 00:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Take my complaint about this with a grain of salt, though: I was a very vocal critic of the recent situation that seems to have brought this about. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still unsure of what purpose it serves at all. "To avoid a potentially or actively suicidal user from being further aggravated by discussions or misguided attempts to help by Wikipedians" ...what? Because of everyone else, the "suicidal" editor is blocked? They can still edit their talk page, and so can everyone else...
 * Funnily enough, I've just been reading something abut this on the mailing list. See here. Helpful bystanders tend to do more harm than good, and blocking the account in question and protecting the talk page tends to dampen down the situation. The ANI thread should have also been shut down, but that is slightly more difficult. Carcharoth 01:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, protecting the talk page in conjunction with the block makes much more sense. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 01:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Presumption that the matter should be passed to admins
Regarding this bit: "Any person who observes apparently suicidal behavior (discussion or announcements on an article or user talk page, user page, etc) should notify Wikipedia administrators in general." - I'm uncomfortable with the presumption here that the matter should be passed to admins to deal with. Admins are needed to carry out certain parts of this, but the onus should always be on the individual who wants to deal with this to pick up the ball and keep running with it, asking for help along the way, or passing the ball where they can't deal with it. This is particularly important in cases where individuals can deal with things themselves. If they feel responsible enough to pick up the phone and make these calls themselves, then they should do so. No need to sit around waiting for a response from an administrator. ANI should be a place to post a notice and ask for advice, not an emergency call centre. I think the wording I'm looking for is "should take action themselves if they feel comfortable doing so, and post a notice at ANI, or just post a notice at ANI". But that is prescriptive. Any way to turn that into descriptive wording? Carcharoth 00:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it and see what I can do. I agree that a responder does not in any way need to be an admin (I was not an admin when I dealt with my first case here) - but admins should be notified.  Georgewilliamherbert 01:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a "Who should respond" section at the top, trying to make that point. A bit of prescriptive isn't going to kill us, but I don't want this essay to be attacked on the grounds that I'm trying to dictate policy.  Georgewilliamherbert 01:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Trolling and hoaxes and crying wolf
One thing that might be good, if you want this to deter trolls as well, is to describe how this process has, in the past, led to hoaxers being given "a severe talking to" by the police. See here. But adding details like that might get messy, as you just know some people will then start linking to all the previous incidents... My other thought is that any presumptions of trolling must be avoided at all costs. I'm also cynical about police responders always being well-trained to respond to suicidal cases, though they will in all cases be better than us. My one concern is the following scenario: suicide note - report - police respond - report filters back to Wikipedia that it was a hoax - some time later the same person (or possibly the same person) starts up again - people think it is a hoax - then we hear it isn't (the original 'hoaxer' had fooled the police and was suicidal after all). That is needed to emphasise the need to keep blocks in place until things have settled down, and to remind people that reports that something is a hoax shouldn't be taken at face value, and that someone crying wolf doesn't remove the need to treat each incident seriously on its own merits. Now, how to include this and keep it simple? Difficult. Carcharoth 01:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how many trolls will come look at the policy before trolling. Nor necessarily be deterred by the reporting to authorities; a true troll can engage in anonymizing actions prior to making the trolling post, for example (internet cafe, Tor).  Some less-than-trollish hoaxers might be deterred, if they read the policy first, which is unlikely.
 * My inclination here is that this isn't necessarily a useful addition, but I'm open to being convinced that my initial reaction is wrong and that we should say something about it. Georgewilliamherbert 02:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Too verbose
this page really doesn't have to be so long. see WP:Exploding_Users --Duk 06:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Template for ANI?
Inspired by these guidelines for in general dealing with threats of life and limb, proposed here. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  23:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have left my comments there. Neran e i   (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a guideline?

 * This document does not comprise Policy and is not a Guideline - this describes prior incident handling, the rationale under which prior incident handlers have acted, and provides a recommendation for future incidents to be handled in a like manner.

If this is so, then why is the whole page written like a guideline? Users are referring to this page as though it were a guideline. It would be better for the page to, in fact, describe prior incident handling and the rationale, as the above paragraph claims the article does. Tempshill 02:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an essay, a historical document, and a fruit salad, all in one. There were two attempts for the community to establish an a priori policy.  They failed to gain consensus.
 * This is ... not policy. If someone else wants to try again with a new, a priori policy document, they are welcome to do so.  This is intended to document the implimented policy... what admins and senior users did, and why.  A "policy" document would instruct users and violations of it would be blockable (or at least a warnable/actionable offense), have widespread community support, etc.  This document is the difference between "what admins do / have done / agree with in general" and a formal policy.
 * If a new consensus evolves around this as a guideline, then that's fine. If not, it's helpful as an explanation of what and why.  It's not subject to being "rejected by the community" as it's not asserting enforcable policy - it's just what we've done.
 * If someone does something else instead of this, there's no community consensus that they did the wrong thing. It would be different than prior incident handling, but I don't assert that other types of response are community consensus policy wrong.
 * I and many other admins feel that other types of response are a really bad idea, but that's different than them being policy. Georgewilliamherbert 03:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One more step
Once the outlined steps are taken, I recommend deleting or archiving the ANI thread. The longer we leave threads like these on center stage, the more we encourage copycat incidents. - Jehochman Talk 23:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, getting it out of the public view is good. I prefer archiving to deletion however, especially if the relevant edits have been deleted. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  02:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

IRC?
I'm not entirely sure the #wikipedia IRC channel is a good idea when trying to get in contact with an admin. There are too many non-admins in there, as well as trolls (on occasion) who would just make fun of the whole situation. --Coredesat 19:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

?
I am a devout agnostic, on deity  &  suicide  &  wiki  & virtually everything.

I am very harmed by how I am treated by wiki: just see my comments.

If any of you can rein-in the  reign  of this claimed deity, maybe you would be more of a believer than I am:


 * < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=user_talk:hopiakuta&diff=172239791&oldid=171879296 >.

It has been writing here.

Thank You,

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 08:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows
Although I shouldn't be counted on in all times, if a situation pops up on Wikipedia and you feel like you cannot contact local authorities for some reason, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I'll take care of it because I am not afraid of doing so and I have done it before in these situations. — Save_Us _ 229 06:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Deterrent: Proof that the police will show up at your door
Someone should work this into the page as a nice deterrent. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt about it. I've called police from London to Texas to Chicago and they all showed up at the users home and took the proper measures against them for posting the suicide note or death threats here (even as far as getting the FBI involved once). It's nice to see proof like this show up after the incident is handled. — Save_Us _ 229 08:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing the merge
There's been a long-standing merge proposal between Potentially suicidal users and Responding to threats of harm. I've drafted a merged page at User:Luna Santin/sandbox (permalink). Feel free to modify the page or to suggest any desired changes. If there's no feedback within a reasonable timeframe, I'll complete the merge. I'll be posting this identical notice to both talk pages, and will try to check both for comments; realistically, though, it may help if we direct comments to Wikipedia talk:Responding to threats of harm, where old discussion on the merge proposal took place. – Luna Santin  (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Waited long enough, perhaps? I've gone ahead and completed the merge. – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)