Wikipedia talk:Potentially suicidal users

message: 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)
thread_title:  Follow up reports on Wikipedia to document actions taken 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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...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 // ☯ // 00:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, protecting the talk page in conjunction with the block makes much more sense. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking subtleties 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Presumption that the matter should be passed to admins 

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

message: Inspired by these guidelines for in general dealing with threats of life and limb, proposed here. ~Eliz81(C) 23:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left my comments there. Neranei (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for ANI? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. ~Eliz81(C) 02:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One more step

message: 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)
thread_title:  IRC? 

message: 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,
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 08:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Just so everyone knows

message: Someone should work this into the page as a nice deterrent.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Deterrent: Proof that the police will show up at your door 

message: There's been a long-standing merge proposal between Wikipedia:Potentially suicidal users and Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: Waited long enough, perhaps? I've gone ahead and completed the merge. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing the merge