Wikipedia talk:Responding to suicidal individuals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines#Guidelines for dealing with suicidal people?

This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.

Contents

[edit] Guidelines for dealing with suicidal people?

I think that there should be some guidelines for how best to deal with suicidal individuals. We often get people on the reference desks who feel that there is no one to turn to, and so they ask for help from total strangers on Wikipedia. In such cases responding incorrectly could easily push already desperate people over the edge. Perhaps the reference desk guidelines should include a list of some online resources that editors can recommend to suicidal individuals. A thought on this? S.dedalus 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the volunteers here are capable of helping suicidal people and the reference desk happens to be a great place to turn to when you feel suicidal. Please DO NOT EVER send those people away: instead, invite them to stay, sit around, create an account and chat and also help on the desk! A.Z. 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Rather than inviting them to chat – with people who may be well-meaning but definitely aren't trained or experienced in dealing with suicidal individuals – I think that having a list of resources to which we can guide them would be very helpful. We have to acknowledge that some problems are just beyond the scope and abilities of the Ref Desk, and that it would be unethical and even dangerous for us to try to solve them.
This issue occaisonally comes up elsewhere on Wikipedia, as well. Perhaps we ought to have a centralized list of resources and tools, if one doesn't already exist. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say revert on sight. 99+%Many of them are trolls, and even if there's the occasional poor soul who isn't, there's little we can do for them. We're ill-equipped and it's outside our scope. However, a list of resources such as Ten suggested would certainly not be a bad idea either. I suggest it be put on the user talk page tho, (even for an IP address) and the ref desk content be reverted. The last thing we want is a bunch of people making stupid jokes about it, on the off chance that it's not just a troll we're dealing with. Friday (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a really stupid idea. People do I wish people did not start to make stupid jokes. A.Z. 00:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately they do, A.Z. I remember two instances, one last August or September, one more recent one. Both times frosty advice on how to actually perform the act of suicide as well as cynical comments (and stupid jokes) were added. Both original posts were made by registered users, and not for one second, did I assume they were trolls, nevertheless, they were treated in an incredibly unhelpful and immature way. In one case I tried contacting the poster per e-mail, but never received a reply, though the user continued to edit a few days later. Perhaps s/he was embarassed, and, if I'm not mistaken, the post was eventually overseen (meaning removed in a way that even makes it impossible to view the edit history). I'm at a loss what to recommend here, and would welcome more thoughts on this topic. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Sluzzelin, in cases where editors are making jokes about the suicide message I think the only remedy is for other editors to be very diligent about reverting such replies. Perhaps, such replies could also be treated as especially saver cases of vandalism.S.dedalus 02:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Jokes about suicidal people that come here asking for help should be reverted immediately. A.Z. 02:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but they were, and at least one person saw this as an infringement of our "freedom of speech" and wished to reinstate them, and a discussion regarding "unilateral" censorship and policies ensued (not kidding). This is an extreme example, I'm glad we both agree on how it is best dealt with. I wish everyone agreed. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Friday, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that most suicide messages should be reverted as trolling. I remember reading about one of the few surviving Golden Gate Bridge “jumpers.” He said that he was standing there reconsidering whether to jump or not, when a tourist asked him to take her photo. He thought, there really is no one who cares, so he jumped. I think reverting a ”cry for help” will almost certainly result in an obituary. It is far better to needlessly respond to a few trolls than accidently fuel a suicide attempt. As for putting replies on the person’s user talk page, I seriously doubt that people who are not experienced with Wikipedia would think to check their talk page. The “centralized list of resources and tools” sounds like a good idea to me. Perhaps under Wikipedia: Dealing with suicidal individuals. I would suggest [1] would be a good resource to start with. Is this a workable idea, and are there any other editors who would like to help write this? S.dedalus 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The phone number in your link is only for the United States. A.Z. 02:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
That’s true , however I would like to include a number of recourses in the proposed guideline page. Do you have any suggestions for international resources? S.dedalus 03:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
A person asked a question about chat-based online counseling on the miscellaneous reference desk on March 29, but I can't find it in the archives. A.Z. 03:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this it? S.dedalus 04:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the useful link from that online counseling discussion. S.dedalus 04:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The handy thing is- we don't have to guess which ones are trolling. Regardless of which are which, replying usefully on user talk and discouraging further comment on the ref desk is a good thing, don't you think? My main concern is for the ones that aren't trolling- we don't want to make their bad situation worse. Altho, come to think of it.. even if the original post is trolling, it's still not good to encourage a bunch of suicide-related humor. A real person in a bad situation could read that, too. Friday (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be comments and advice on the reference desk. I like that idea. At least until someone creates a little Wikimedia project to help all the suicidal people who come here. A.Z. 02:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, Friday, that I don’t think many IP address users even know they have a talk page. Perhaps we could post replies on the persons talk page, but then put a note on the reference desk saying that we have responded to their question on their personal discussion page. We could then include a link to that page. S.dedalus 04:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should develop a standard response for suicidal people. Anyone who claims to be so (whether they're perceived to be a troll or not) could then be directed to that page, and any other comment (whether humorous, helpful or indifferent) would be banned. What would go in that response is of course a matter of discussion. How the ban on other comment could be enforced is also a challenge. As many have noted, some of these people really are suicidal, and the worst possible result would be for Wikipedia to unwittingly (or wittingly) assist a person to kill themselves. It's one thing to be a reference desk for all comers, but sometimes we do ourselves a disservice by taking that to its extreme, by simply telling them what they want to know, eg. a non-messy way of killing themselves. In my view, that is simply not on. JackofOz 04:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Using my bad English, that I wish so much was better right now, let me just say that, to some people, Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia. To some people, Wikipedia also means hope that the truth will reach a lot of people and that everyone in the world will know what are logical fallacies and cognitive biases and will avoid them, and everyone will find out that gay people have contributed to mankind the same way straight people have. There are people here who have been bullied and harrassed in the real world and, in the place that at the start was just an encyclopedia, ended up founding good people that would help them feel good with themselves. Respectful, intelligent people that care about other people and that, as themselves, want the truth to reach everyone. I know this is an encyclopedia. I know it is not supposed to be for helping suicidal people. I do understand now Friday's worries and I didn't before. I really understand him now because people have made jokes about me and making those jokes can really lead to an obituary. The fact is that... I don't know to where on the Internet you could send all those MANY suicidal people who come here for one reason or another. Who come here to write either on the reference desk or in the articles. Who explicitly say they are suicidal or not. People are just not nice to each other in the real world and it seems that the community of Wikipedia somehow became a little more civilized than the average... This WILL attract a lot of people searching for help. Some of them will press the "save page" button, some of them will say "how stupid to turn to an online wiki encyclopedia" and jump off a bridge. Just please realize how important it is what you are deciding right now. You are actually deciding what will become of some people's lives. Even if they were few people, it would matter a lot. But there are A LOT of people who come here for that, and the number is only likely to increase. A.Z. 07:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a concern that adding something about this to the guidelines may have a WP:BEANS-like effect on trolls.  --LambiamTalk 08:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not only talking about the guidelines of the reference desk here. I actually think Wikimedia should start to draft a policy for this sort of thing. A.Z. 08:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you A.Z. I totally agree. Is it time to bring this up on WP:VPP? S.dedalus 19:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, by all means, if no one has brought it up there before! I am not a native speaker of English, so I wouldn't be the right person to bring it up there, since it's such an important matter and I wouldn't be able to explain everything that has to be said well enough. You seem to care about the suicidal people who come here and to understand the importance of such a policy. However, I was more thinking of Wikimedia, since suicidal people may go and cry for help on the other projects as well. A.Z. 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Out of Wikipedia's original scope, but how about setting up a 'Special Help Desk' for individuals who are indeed desperate, and even suicidal? This can be manned by registered members, needing a password to reply (to stop the immature comments and to better know who is talking to whom). These registered members could be equipped with the knowledge of the best places to go for 'visitors', and could use them in accordance with the specifics of the problem that each visitor has, should preliminary talking fail. I was chairman for an NPO that specialized in family counselling in Japan, so I would certainly do it, if asked.ScouseMouse - スカウサーUK! 00:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I doubt that what you propose would go over very well with the Wikipedia powers that be. It would skirt dangerously close to being considered a counseling service and in the US it is probably illegal for an organization of people with no medical background to set up a service like that. At the very least it would probably leave Wikipedia open to a torrent of lawsuits. S.dedalus 01:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
While it is an interesting idea, I note that such a project – operating within the confines of the Wikipedia project – isn't technically feasible at the moment. Currently we can limit editing of pages to admins only (page protection), or to registered users only (semiprotection); I don't think we can implement the sort of fine-grained control described.
I suspect that we're probably best to confine ourselves to the response that a real-life reference desk would offer to an individual contemplating suicide. We should provide a list of resources and qualified professionals who can help the person in need. Leaving aside the issues of civil and criminal liability that S.dedalus (quite reasonably) mentions, I'm just not comfortable with an encyclopedia project (remember, that's what we're mandated to do) assuming this sort of role. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break - suggesting a policy or guideline

As per Wikipedia:How to create policy I am creating a policy draft of the proposal under the tentative title Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals. If you are so inclined, please help me draft this policy as I have no experience writing this kind of Wikipedia page. When the page looks okay we should probably post the proposal on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies. From the ideas suggested in this discussion I’ve started to draft the policy around the following points: how and how NOT to respond to a suicidal individual’s post, the stipulation that editors should not attempt to provide medical advice (e.g. "you’re suffering from depression"), a list of public online or telephone recourses where suicidal individuals can seek help, and the requirement that editors should try to respond to suicidal messages on the user’s personal talk page, but also leave a message on the reference desk linking the person to their talk page. Anything I missed? S.dedalus 06:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Two of the worst things we could do to a person who claims to be suicidal are to delete their post or give them a stock reply. Being ignored or getting the equivalent of a "form letter" could put them literally over the edge. I believe standard advice to those who encounter suicidal individuals is to keep them talking, then try to find something meaningful in their lives they can focus on. StuRat 01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree about not ignoring them. I'm somewhat concerned about us acting as personal counsellors, however. Just as we're not in the business of providing legal or medical advice, I don't think we should be in the business of talking a suicidal person through their crisis. There are thousands of places that are equipped to do precisely that, and we should tell the person about them. If they're serious about wanting help with suicidal thoughts, they'll be interested in finding someone who's skilled in that area. Wikipedia is not such a place. Some previous examples of the way we've dealt with suicidal people here were models of what not to do, with bickering amongst users becoming the main focus of attention. The person ended up becoming incidental to the discussion, which was tantamount to ignoring them. We need to assume they're for real, and focus on them, not each other. But does that mean we should assume that Wikipedia is the one and only place they've gone to for help, and assume total responsibility for their lives? Sometimes the best advice we can give is to direct them to where the best advice can be found, not try to make it up as we go along. That direction would be one of the things I'd definitely include in the "form letter" (an expression I would never have used in this context). If they really want help, they'll read it, and not just latch on to the Reference Desk and make it solely responsible for the answers to all their problems. JackofOz 01:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jack's response. As for Wikipedia not being the one and only place where the best advice can be found, I recently read a related discussion somewhere else on Wikipedia, and one editor, justifiably in my opinion, pointed out that suicide threats here were a form of emotional blackmailing. Maybe Friday was thinking of something similar too. I'm certainly against ridicule or (even potentially) pushing over the edge, but our responsibility should end after pointing users to sources with the professional expertise necessary to help people in these desperate and dark moments of their lives. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree of course that Wikipedia cannot provide a counseling service. I mentioned this above in my reply to ScouseMouse. All I am proposing in this policy is that Wikipedia respond to any suicidal individual the same way any good citizen would respond to a person on a ledge. In other wards treat them in a way that will not increase their likelihood of jumping, and then point them to a source of help. Unfortunately Wikipedia has often failed miserably at this in the past. S.dedalus 06:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course we should treat them in a way that will not increase their likelihood of jumping. But the analogy does not quite hold water. Wikipedia is, in some respects, a many-headed hydra, speaking with just as many voices. Who, in real life, would want a hydra with them on the ledge while they contemplate jumping? They need one person. The Ref Desk cannot hope to speak with one voice, and should not try to. We are inherently many. That is why we have failed at this in the past: the lesson, imho, is that we should never have even tried to help, except for your suggestion that we point them to a source of help, which might be achieved inter alia by developing a resource that becomes a standard response. JackofOz 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Imagine somebody standing on a ledge, with a group of people around who could talk with the would-be-jumper, but instead they say "we're not qualified to help, go find a licensed therapist", then then their backs and walk away. What do you think the results would be ? StuRat 00:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Good question, StuRat. I had the opportunity to spend a week taking part in training sessions on being a volunteer help-line operator. The professionals there discussed this very issue and their reasoning essentially as follows: If you are not a professional then you can have no way of knowing whether what you say will help or hinder a suicidal person. If you actively engage and the person jumps, then you can find yourself legally liable and you open youself to psychological damage in never knowing whether you were in some way responsible. So what they suggest is that the only opinion you should give them is that you cannot tell them what to do because you are not a professional and the only information you should impart is the contact information for a professional. However that doesn't preclude you from listening, neither does it mean you should walk away. The key skill is learning to let people talk themselves out of the situation by reflecting their thoughts back at themselves. That would be the appropriate strategy on a telephone or in person, but i'm not sure if that is appropriate advice to give here, for the reasons Jack notes above. Rockpocket 01:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The question of potential legal liability if things go poorly is one that had also occurred to me. That is why I suggested below that once, we have a decent draft, we need to get the Wikimedia Foundation to run it through a legal review. There are a few lawyers here, but by and large most of us are not lawyers. Therefore, I say we should ignore all legal issues except perhaps to form a list of questions to put to the proper specialist. Johntex\talk 01:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer is worth noting here. In fact, at its core it could be used for the same purpose of this proposal: Wikipedia doesn't give medical advice, consult a doctor. The only thing this policy changes is what to do with people who are thought to be trolls. --YbborTalkSurvey! 02:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to Stu Rat: You seem to have put Wikipedia squarely on the ledge with the suicidal person. My argument is that, however much the person thinks we are on the ledge with them, we are not on the ledge, and should not pretend to be. Just because a person comes here and tells us they're contemplating suicide, does not make us responsible for whatever they do next. I appreciate and respect the natural desire to assist others in need, but that does not equate to responsibility for them. However, we have to avoid, as far as we possibly can, contributing to their decision to jump. I say "as far as we possibly can" because in most cases we know next to nothing of the person or their circumstances. We can't look into their eyes and see their fear or sadness, we can't hear the despair in their voice, we can't read their body language, we can't develop any kind of inter-personal rapport - these things are a huge part of emotional communication. Without them, even if we were all trained counsellors, we're bereft of resources. We nevertheless have a responsibility to tell them that we care, to acknowledge what they say and tell them we believe them, and to give them some pointers to where they can best get professional help. Far from ignoring them or being indifferent to their situation, we're telling them we're on their side. This acknowledgment would give them a better chance than they might otherwise have, and the proposed policy would certainly give them a better chance than if we made it up as we went along in each case, as well intentioned as that might be. In my view, advising them where best to go for advice is a much more compassionate and sensitive response than anything else. I'm the first to admit this approach may not always be effective; a person may kill themselves anyway, without ever having gone elsewhere. But then, there is no such thing as a 100% succesful approach to suicide prevention. It's not that I don't care if someone does jump off the ledge - it's that we stand a much better chance of doing more harm than good by trying to deal with the matter ourselves. As many better people than I have said, whatever good we may do, we must do no harm. We have not only to have a compassionate and responsible approach to this issue, but also to be seen to have such a policy, and to be seen to be applying it whenever the occasion demands. JackofOz 02:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No

Wikipedia is not therapy. We are simply ill-positioned to deal with the terminally depressed. Don't we have a list of helpful agencies somewhere in article space? If so, all we can feasibly do is point people there. >Radiant< 14:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely agreed. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have something stating that, because it is very important that editors not pretend that they can deal with suicidal people. -Amarkov moo! 05:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That is a reasonable point, yes. >Radiant< 08:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the best option really. Question is how brief or succinct do you need the introduction. Much briefer than what is on this page? Also, I find NGO helplines tricky as they then refer on again to mental health services.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something like this is needed

We absolutely need a policy on what to do when observing someone on Wikipedia who may be a danger to themselves or to others. This is a good step.

I personally have already been involved in one such situation here. In that case, I made a phone call to Danny and that got the ball rolling for getting the person some help.

I have a problem with this sentence which is in the current version "...never revert under the assumption that it is trolling unless there is very good evidence that that is the case (i.e. editor is a repeat offender)." I don't think that we can ever assume such a user is just trolling. Suicidal people may test the waters many times by talking about suicide and even making half-hearted attempts. These are actually calls for help, but a naive reader might easily brush off their initial statements as jokes or trolling. I think our instruction should be to treat each and every incident seriously. Trained professionals are the only ones who should be able to declare that a user is not serious. Johntex\talk 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Though, of course, making this explicit policy would be manna from heaven for trolls. I don't wish to sound like a heartless bastard here, but if Wikipedia is not therapy why are we considering policy from a therapuetic POV? Some things are better left interpreted on a case by case basis. Rockpocket 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to know what might happen, but I don't think it will be that big of a problem. Obviously there is a limit to how much we would be able to put up with, but surely we can put up with a lot if it helps turn even a few lives around, can't we? I saw we should risk the trolls. I honestly don't think it will be that big of a problem. If I am wrong and it becomes absolutely unbearable we can make changes later if we have to. Johntex\talk 00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, I don't really know myself. I guess my point was more one that that a lot of disruptive editors may have social problems or mental problems that manifests in vandalism here. I have seen editors that (in my amateur opinion) use Wikipedia for purposes of human connection, either desperately seeking attention or approval. I have seen editors who appear highly distraught when disaproval is expressed of them. In some of the more extreme cases, a indef block or a reversion could also have serious consequences in their lives. Should we have exceptional policy for those also?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for treating those who mention suicide with due sensitivity and care, but our policies already tell us we should be treating all editors with due sensitivity and care. So we should take every case seriously by simply following our established policies in a friendly but detached way (i.e. politely tell them this is not an appropriate forum for such comments and direct them towards a more appropriate place. Then leave it up to judgement on whether to revert or not or when it becomes trolling). To summerize, i'm all for a guideline/policy on what an editor should do in such a situation, but the guideline should instruct them to follow our established policies, it should not create a new extraordinary policy for therateutic purposes (especially one that would essentially give free reign to trolls). Rockpocket 00:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resources inside and outside Wikipedia

On several occasions I have notified FBI, Secret Service, FTC, local police, fire dept, others, when I witnessed what I interpreted as a potential risk relevant to wherever authority. Witnesses need to know appropriate authority to notify, given various types of circumstances, and how to contact them ... there was an incident years ago that I thought should be told to the US Marshall Service, but I could not find them in the Yellow Pages, and by the time I found contact info, the incident involving risk to others had ended and the evildoers left the scene. There was another incident where someone's e-mail id was the name of a person on the FBI 10 most wanted criminal list, with letters of name rearranged, asking the kind of question you would expect if it was really that person planning the kind of crime that maed the minfamous. I thought it was either a joke in very bad taste, or should be reported to someone, but who? User:AlMac|(talk) 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Once we have a decent draft

Once we have a decent draft of this, we need to have this checked over by a professional in the field of suicide prevention to make sure that we have it right. In my opinion we should also run this through legal council. It is an important enough issue for someone at the Foundation to spend some time, and if necesary a little money, to make sure that we have this right.

Once that is done, I would even go so far as to say that perhaps this page should be protected in an "approved" form. There really should not be a reason for it to undergo continuing edits, other than possibly to update some phone numbers. Johntex\talk 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What to do and what not to do

I disagree with these two sections; first the essay states that we're not the place to turn to for help, then the next to sections seem to codify a set of actions to follow and avoid. I think both should be removed. I think overall the scope of this essay is too wide. I think it should be a simple set of statements and a couple of resources:

  • Wikipedia is not therapy
  • We are not equipped professionally or organisationally to deal with these situations
  • Editors will act in accordance with their consciences
  • An editor who makes a suicidal statement may be legitimately suffering or may be a troll
  • An editor who makes a suicidal statement on an anonymous internet community may be asking for help and may need/deserve help, or may be simply making a statement; but is regrettably opening her/himself up to a variety of reactions, some of which may be undesirable or unexpected or hurtful
  • An editor who makes a public suicidal statement to an anonymous internet community is inviting a variety of responses; some may be supportive and helpful, some may be unkind, disruptive, or trollish, and some may intrude into that editor's real life
  • Any action we take may help or may make things worse
  • Here's a list of resources to be drawn upon or to make the editor aware of
  • Care should be taken not to enflame the situation with dramatic or accusatory messages, a surfeit of sympathetic messages, drawing excessive attention to the situation or the editor, embarrassing the editor
  • Care should be taken not to allow the drawing of personnel and resources to resolving the situation to a) strain the resources or goodwill of the community, or b) cause conflict or divisiveness within the community —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anchoress (talk • contribs) 23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] More about my concern

The problem I have with this initative is that, from our place in the anonymous, isolated realm of building an encyclopedia, a) we can never know enough about the phenomenon of internet suicide threats to formulate even a simple code of conduct that would be appropriate in even most cases - because we will seldom if ever have enough information to make the right decision collectively, and b) such a code must necessarily be in conflict with some of the principles and norms of Wikipedia.

For instance, the codecil about reverting inflammatory or inappropriate comments to the suicidal editor: what if someone posts that they are planning to commit suicide, and another editor posts saying, 'I 100% support your right to do what you want, live or die. I don't believe suicides go to hell, and I don't believe you should stay if it hurts you or if it's just to make other people happy.' Would that be reverted? If so, by what criteria? It's civil. It's supportive. It's not revealing personal information. It's no more off-topic than a suicide threat. I don't believe that we should have a separate code of conduct for communication on the talkpage of someone who has threatened suicide versus regular editors. And if that is the case, then the guideline recommending the reversion of inappropriate communication must necessarily be curtailed.

And also, based on the discussion on ANx regarding PatPeter, the prevailing thought was that it was basic human decency to do whatever was necessary to ensure the person got help. I don't disagree with that, not at all. But I strongly resist codifying it in a guideline (not saying that is what is happening, but it could happen), because we cannot know that our actions are actually going to help, and therefore we cannot formulate a guideline that the whole community is expected to uphold. For instance: what if help is dispatched, the police knock at the door or call the person's work or school, and that is what pushes them over the edge? What if we're inadvertently helping someone commit suicide by cop? Unlikely, to be sure, but - while I think it is entirely appropriate for individual editors to react as they feel moved to by their conscience and sense of social responsibility - I believe we cannot take the responsibility as a community of deciding that a particular course of action is preferable, and should be pursued as a matter of course. Anchoress 00:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Anchoress has, I think, captured in a more eloquent way what I was trying to express up there ^^. Rockpocket 01:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A personal statement

As someone who is the friend and relative of many loved ones who successfully committed suicide as well as many who either threatened but never attempted, or attempted but didn't succeed, I have the following 'personal guideline':

  • Some people commit suicide, others don't
  • Some people who threaten to commit suicide and get help, kill themselves anyway
  • Some people who threaten to commit suicide and don't get help, kill themselves
  • Some people who never say a word about suicide, kill themselves
  • Some people who do or don't say a word about suicide, attempt suicide and live
  • Working to prevent someone from killing themselves can be a draining, damaging experience
  • The empathetic, proactive reactions that, to some people, seem the only appropriate responses (like FIND HELP FOR THE PERSON AT ANY COST), may be anathema to others
  • The disinterested, morally relativistic reactions that, to some people, seem the only appropriate responses (like I SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT TO DO WHAT YOU WANT), may be anathema to others
  • For whatever reason, not everyone is capable of responding constructively to threats of suicide or suicidal people
  • It is as important to be empathetic to the feelings and good-faith responses of fellow humans as it is to be empathetic to the person threatening suicide
  • Some reactions to a threat of suicide may seem offensive, but may nevertheless be well-thought-out and sincere
  • There is no single perfect response to a threat of suicide

Anchoress 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responsiblity for people's lives

Re: "Remember always that we are possibly responsible in part for this individual's continued life."

I've said above that I don't believe Wikipedia is responsible for a suicidal person's life, so I can't support this sentence as it stands. It places too great an emotional burden on us, and is at odds with the proposed policy that would direct the person to a more appropriate source of help. However I do support the noble intention behind it. Given the limited scope of what Wikipedia can do for any one suicidal person, this needs to be more about being diligent in not contributing to any decision to jump off the ledge. If we do the best we can but they jump anyway, are we somehow even partially responsible for that? I say no. I'm suggesting this be changed to something like:

  • Remember that, while we are not responsible for the person's decisions or their life, we have a duty of care to help them as far as we can, but never do anything that might in any way contribute to their decision to kill themselves".

I'm not entirely happy with this wording, because what may or may not contribute to such a decision is a very open question, and would probably differ from case to case. I may genuinely consider that a particular statement would not contribute to them jumping, but another user may think it's a shockingly irresponsible statement. It's a very fine judgment, best made by a qualified counsellor, not us. But we are the ones with whom the person is dealing right now, and we can't just abdicate total responsiblity for fear of making a terrible mistake. Doing or saying nothing would look like indifference, and that could well be the worst mistake of all. Comments and improvements welcome. JackofOz 03:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As much as it sounds bad, I think we need to just weasel out of discussing responsibility at all. It's unfair to say that I'm partially responsible for someone's death because they made a suicide threat here, but it comes across as uncaring to say that we are not responsible. -Amarkov moo! 03:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer something like:
  • Remember, while we have no responsibility for the actions of other editors, we do have a responsibility to be sensitive and responsible in our interactions with them.
This highlights that we must show sensitivity, but ultimately have no responsibility for what they choose to do. Rockpocket 04:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're getting at, Rockpocket, but I don't think it's weaselish or uncaring to assert that we're not responsible for the lives of others. This is an important matter, because most editors are naturally helpful and some might feel guilty if their best efforts turned out to be in vain. They have no need to feel guilty because they were never responsible to begin with, but sometimes this needs to be said explicitly. We need to do all we can to stop users possibly inflaming a critical situation for the person concerned, while acting out of laudable motives, but stemming from a feeling of misplaced personal responsibility. Ultimately, intention matters little - outcomes are what's important. Comment on the wording: It's good, but "we do have a responsibility to be ... responsible ..." is not quite there. JackofOz 04:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That seems to strike a good balance; I don’t think that we should reject all sense of responsibility in our response. However, of course we are not solely responsible for the actions of other users. JackofOz: wouldn’t you agree that we ALWAYS have a responsibility to be “sensitive and responsible in our interactions” on Wikipedia? S.dedalus 04:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
A responsibility to be responsible seems to be like a cat chasing its tail. I have no quibble with the general concept, just the wording. I'd say we have a responsibility to be sensitive and compassionate, or something like that. Our responsibility for that does not extend to a further level of responsibility. JackofOz 05:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggested it as a corollary to WP:CIV, though as its phrased it may imply somewhat more than that. I guess I'd like to find a way to say that while we have no responsibility towards other editors actions, we should be extra careful (in terms of being civil) in our interactions with them. Rockpocket 05:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
We are all responsible as individuals for our actions. And as a community, Wikipedians are responsible for setting up policies that generally govern the acceptable conduct between users. Because all types of people are welcome here (priests, philosophers, atheists, postmoderns, and nihilists) it would be difficult to build a consensus as to whether or not such a thing as morality even exists, let alone what our moral responsibilities are. That is the problem of "truth by consensus." It gives undue weight to relativism, in my opinion. Regardless, I hope we can all agree that it is undesirable from a humanistic standpoint to provoke a potentially suicidal person. Wishing others well, that they may not suffer, transcends most religions and cultures (imagine that). Because it is not possible for us to discern between legitimate and spurious "cries for help" I'm pleased to see a discussion about standardizing a correct method for responding to these types of communications. Best, MoodyGroove 13:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

[edit] This is a bad idea

While clearly well-intentioned, this kind of page as policy would be a very bad idea. We are not counselors. We should not give any hint or implication that we can be held responsible to behave as such. If the Foundation thinks we need a page like this, then they should write it with the full, expert advice of Legal Counsel and competent medical experts. Trying to write this as a wiki-policy built by consensus is a recipe for disaster. Rossami (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we're not responsible for the lives of others, nor are we counsellors, which is why I've written what I wrote above. I also agree that the Foundation and its legal team should be consulted before this ever gets to being a formal policy. But just waiting for them to do the development would possibly see some potential suicides jump to their deaths, because we hadn't got around to coming up with some guidelines that may have prevented them from doing just that. It's the Ref Deskers (typically) who have this issue to confront, so we should be taking the initiative in getting this rolling. JackofOz 04:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the primary statements in the proposed policy (or guideline) is Wikipedia is not a counseling service. I feel that even if that is the only part of this that is adopted it is still important to have a clear statement governing that. Wouldn’t you agree Rossami? S.dedalus 04:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree with Rossami on this one. This page begins by stating that we aren't equipped to deal with this, but then starts to explain how to deal with it anyway. This strikes me as misguided. >Radiant< 09:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The logical extension of that argument is to say, if a potential suicide posts a message on the Ref Desk, we should just ignore it because we're not equipped to deal with it. That is not my idea of how a responsible website should behave. We welcome questions from anyone about anything. For very good reasons we don't answer some types of questions, such as the provision of legal or medical advice - but by the same token we at least give them some response even if it's to say we can't help you and you should go to a doctor or a lawyer; we don't just ignore them. With people who tell us they're contemplating suicide, we're essentially proposing to adopt the same approach, ie. direct them to the most appropriate professional who's trained to deal with such cases (because we certainly are not). That is the extent of our "dealing" with them. This is a complex issue, and it needs to be handled especially sensitively, otherwise people die. JackofOz 09:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it is misguided to think that writing a policy about it will cause it to be handled sensitively. >Radiant< 09:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Why? A policy could have verifiable information from best current practice documents. That would help both sides do what's best. This document seems to extend WP:CIVIL to a specific group of people, for whom it may be very important. Dan Beale 12:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Because most users don't read most policy pages. We do not require editors to familiarize themselves with policy before doing anything, and as a result most don't, and as a result of that prescriptive policy works very poorly. This is well-intended but about as effective as an earlier policy proposal to "outlaw" sarcasm. >Radiant< 13:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To elaborate on Radiant's statement, prescriptive policy can work with things like NPOV because it's easy to revert changes that violate it, and no serious harm is done. Reverting rude comments made to people considering suicide does not remove the harm, so a prescriptive policy on it makes little sense. -Amarkov moo! 16:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
But the guideline would be useful because at the moment there's nothing to tell people to stop being callous. A user expresses suicidal ideation, another user mentions it on some board, a bunch of users then pile in with a variety of responses, varying from best practice, through well meaning but not very good, to careless, ending up with blockable arsehollery. Having a nice, clear, well researched, guideline to point people to can't be harmful. Too late for some people isn't too late for everyone. Dan Beale 18:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Reverting a rude comment made by someone in response to a suicidal message also lessons the chance that the suicidal person will see that message. Late is surly better than not at all isn’t it Amarkov? Should we simply leave a hateful message there because there is a chance reverting it will not help? S.dedalus 01:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't leave hateful messages anywhere, and they should be removed no matter what. There's no need for a policy saying to do that in special cases. -Amarkov moo! 01:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
In this case however destructive messages may be worded with civility, but may still show an obvious disregard for the person’s life. For instance, although many editors responded sensibly to this message, many people simply gave the person a painless way to die. Perhaps a “hatful” message was not the right word. There is a need for a policy governing this precisely BECAUSE many of these “helpful” messages to suicidal people are not revertible per standard policy. I should also add that for Wikipedia to assist an individual in committing suicide could, under US law, possibly land both Wikipedia and the editors concerned in serious trouble. S.dedalus 04:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In support of the idea

The project page needs work, but I support the idea of it as a guideline. There's no reason why we shouldn't help people as much as the Internet medium allows us to.

Let me note two things:

1. Wikipedia receives all sorts of weird questions. Someone on WP:NOTO linked to a diff of someone asking for airline tickets, and I'm sure that other examples can be found at WP:BJ. Suicidal statements should be seen in this context.

2. I think the article page help was enhanced with some links a few months back to address the concern of this project page. YechielMan 04:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


I also support this idea. Wiki is not a counselling service, but that doesn't mean that we want to kill people. As for wiki is not censored, that's clearly nonsense. Suicide is the leading cause of death for some age groups, and is a significant cause of death for all age groups. (At least this is the case in the UK and the US, I don't know about other countries.) This guideline could help both wikipedians who want to help and wikipedians who want nothing to do with suicidal individuals. Having said that, I'd hate hate hate to see some wikiproject start that aimed to help those with MH problems. Dan Beale 18:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Epidemiology and methodology of suicide#Age and suicide V-Man - T/C 00:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this is a common problem in many professions

But in most professions one is dealing with people for a defined geographic area, and one can learn the local resources .Librarians for example are trained to deal with this, and will usually know the social services in the catchment area. But the problem for WP is that we do not know usually know what area, and even if we do, we will received help requests from places where we do know what is available. hence the lists of general services is a good starting point.

But there is a difference between referral and effective referral. Effective means motivating the person to ask for help, and if possible to follow up and urge that the referral be undertaken. It means maintaining the contact.

In some jurisdictions there will be additional requirements, especially if the person is a child. In US law, it is generally considered not only permissible but required to break confidentiality is such situations, but no general advice can be given about how to do this over our wide geographic range.

Are there any medical or social work professionals around who can offer some advice? Anyone dealing much with individuals in a public setting may expect to need to deal with this. DGG 06:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Me. I wonder whether there are too many steps - of someone is of significant risk then the hotlines mentioned will have to refer on again to mental health services (In Australia anyway, not sure about how the O/S numbers work). I agree that some legal input is required into this page. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for Policy?

Whilst it is a problem that all businesses, professions could experience at some point, I doubt that many places have such a policy.

I disagree with such a policy being on Wikipedia, no matter how good intentions it has on a potentially tragic issue. Where I work I have never seen a suicide policy and on Monday Im certainly going to have a search for one but I doubt there is any. Half the people on here would not read it, some are anonymous users who wont read that deep into wikipedia and to be honest if you just apply some common sense you'd be fine.

Are Wikipedians suddenly scared they are going to be liable for someones suicide if they dont do something about it? To be honest how can they... if they are successful in their suicide theyll be dead. Only their family could sue and provided you dont say go for it they have no leg to stand on in court!

I feel the simplest way is to give them websites or telephone helplines - there are plenty for the person to contact. That way you could not be held liable in my opinion as its their actions, why are you just because you volunteer to work on this helpdesk suddenly got to be their counsellor? If anything happened you would deny knowledge of being on the site or away from your pc if anything.

I dont see any major websites with such a similar policy, in fact in all the years Ive been on the net this is the first time Ive heard of such a proposal hence my response here. By the way if any of you guys can point me to one Ill take that comment back!

I think your final problem is if this became common knowledge the amount of people who would play on it could be incredible. A lot of kids come on this site, and theyre going to want to have a laugh on something like this, make phony suicide cries etc and waste peoples time trying to deal with them.

Just leave it as it is, no policy required. --PrincessBrat 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Princess Brat. In response:
  • the fact (if it is a fact) that other organisations have no such policy is no reason in itself for us not to have one. Once upon a time, no company with employees had Occupational Health and Safety Rules, but they all do now, and someone had to be the first.
  • the fact that many WP users do not read WP policies is no reason not to have them. Some previous responses to suicide messages that I've seen have been fine, but others have been appalling. Fist fights broke out in the quesioner's presence about how we should best respond. It was disastrous. We need a guideline so that everyone is playing on the same team, with the questioner remaining uppermost in our minds, not each other.
  • a certain percentage of suicide messages are indeed phoney. But are you prepared to be the one to say "That one's phoney, but this one's genuine"? We have to act as if they're all genuine, even if we know many of them are not.
  • I don't recall seeing anyone actually say "go for it" here, but there was certainly a case last year where a person said they were thinking of killing themselves and they asked for suggestions as to how to go about it. Various very helpful answers were provided, including links to other websites with detailed instructions. If that's not effectively saying "go for it", what is? Under the proposed policy, such answers could be immediately reverted. JackofOz 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
In addition, no other website has quite needed this amount of thought because no other website has ever been quite like Wikipedia. While it is important to use common sense, there are important issues (such as a person with suicidal ideations) that need a uniform policy to make sure everyone who is aware of it can be on the same page. V-Man - T/C 00:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this and this demonstrate a need for this policy. Caknuck 03:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I find it both hilariously humorous as well as insultingly disturbing that the Yahoo search pulls up an eBay link offering the tempting "Looking for suicide? Find exactly what you want today!" V-Man - T/C 03:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, Yahoo's first non-advertisement search result is to here. I doubt selling suicide is permitted on eBay ;) Caknuck 04:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this site is really messed up. I find it very frightening that something like this is so high in the search results (or exists at all for that matter.) S.dedalus 04:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I just searched both Google and Yahoo! now and Wikipedia is still the first non-advertisement result for "suicide." For this reason, I'm marking this page as "in need of expert attention"; if there are any experts watching this discussion we'd like to hear from them! 69.140.164.142 21:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say I instinctively like the idea of this guideline, though can appreciate the concerns. If the guideline offered a solid basis for not engaging in comments about self-harm, could it not then actually help deny trolls attention or manipulative ability on this issue though? In terms of the genuine possibility, I wonder if the guideline advised pointing a person concerned to this guideline it might help - so you could say something like unfortunately I can't help on this and this is why (i.e. so it's clearly not personal or a rejection) and perhaps you'll find helpful resources there, and if you'd like help contributing to Wikipedia or dealing with editors/conflicts please just...etc EverSince 04:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not sure about an editor pointing a person making threats to the policy would help much. ("I can't counsel you, and here's why..."), I think that links to the policy would be added to "Suicide crisis" section of Suicide, as well as on the talk pages to all (or most) of the articles related to suicide (in the form of a template at the top of the page). Caknuck 04:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say it's usually helpful to provide information to help a person understand where you're coming from EverSince 05:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This policy will not stop trolls. Nothing can do that, and it's not designed to even try. Its purpose is to guide Wikipedia users about how to respond if they see a suicide message on a talk page/Ref desk, whether or not they think it's from a troll. JackofOz 15:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia Tech

Recent articles have indicated that there's a lot of people with mental health problems, inadequate resources to help them, and people who witness troubled individuals but don't know how to resolve the problem effectively. I saw in the news (sorry I not have a citation) that several Virginia Tech instructors observed that a particular student was a risk to himself and others, formed a committee to try to resolve the problem, had failed to get it resolved when the troubled boy killed 30+ other people on campus.

We all have a civic responsibility, when we witness someone who is a threat to themselves or tothers, to try to help that individual, or help protect society. We do not always know how to do that. User:AlMac|(talk) 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BEANS and WP:DFTT

As a sysop who's dealt with online suicide notes twice, called the Pennsylvania state police for one of them, and subsequently blocked both editors for a year, I vigorously oppose this proposal. Nuke it and bury its radioactive waste ten miles beneath the earth. DurovaCharge! 14:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Anchoress 20:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I must also concur here, The WP:BEANS argument is compelling, as this 'policy' seems to say, wide open, that Trolls who use this as a method of trolling will be taken seriously and face no personal repercussions. I fail to see how the existing policies of assuming good faith and reverting personal attacks would fail to deal with this situation. If anything, all that's needed is a small page listing this as a matter to contact an administrator about and administrative guidelines. This should be left to individual editor's discretion whether or not to respond, and if so, how, with potential indef. blocking for anyone making personal attacks in such a serious situation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, no more, no less; these issues are not common enough, in my opinion, to warrant policy, and if policy were to be drafted it would have to come from above from the foundation with a possible eye to legal ramifications. While I and many editors would respond with a resources to any suicidal editor I found, I acknowledge that even that course of action might inflame some people. There can be no boilerplate response and creating policy over an infrequent (at best) occurance that seems to give a green light to trolls is counterproductive. These should be dealt with through AN/I or by contacting an administrator directly, and if it becomes a serious issue, then administrative guidelines may need to be drawn up, but I don't think this needs to be policy, especially in its current form. Wintermut3 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
One of your assertions is flawed, Wintermut3 - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, no more, no less. Obviously that's our main role, but we also have a Reference Desk where people can ask any question they like, whether it's about material in the encyclopedia, a book/film they've just read/seen, a current event, questions arising from their own lives, whatever. It's a fact of life that we occasionally receive questions telling us that they're contemplating suicide. Sometimes they ask for help in alleviating their feelings; sometimes they ask for advice as to how to actually kill themselves. We don't answer specific medical or legal questions because of the risks involved, but we do suggest they see a doctor or lawyer for the best advice. That is, we don't just ignore them. With suicide messages, there's an ethical/moral dimension involved, as well as a potentially legal one. We need to collectively agree on how best to handle such situations. That's what this discussion is about. It may not happen very much in the scheme of things, but even if this sort of message arrives only once a year, we need to be ready for it. JackofOz 06:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that we need to handle these situations intellegently, I dissagree with the assertion that "[...]if this sort of message arrives only once a year, we need to be ready for it." Not that I dissagree that we need to be ready, but I dissagree with that implying the need for an official policy (see Instruction Creep). In my opinion this could be handled with a guideline for administrators and existing Wikipedia policy, and doesn't need a specific policy page. The meaning, in a nutshell, of WP:BEANS is that we shouldn't give people ideas as to what they're not supposed to to, or give them a guideline for being disruptive; this may do just that by letting trolls know that they will be treated seriously if they make these kinds of claims (with no punishment no less) even repeatedly and by creating this straw problem of suicidal wikipedians.Wintermut3 15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Good points. Fortunately I've never had this experience, but imagine you're doing overtime one night, and you go up to the roof of your office building to have a smoke, and you see a person standing on the ledge. You go over to see what they're doing, and they say "Don't come any closer or I'll jump". What do you do? I won't attempt to answer this. The point of that scenario is that it's one you're likely to encounter at most once in your life. However, on the Ref Desk the analogous thing happens more often than that, about 3 times in the past year, from memory. It's likely to continue at much the same rate. I'm not wedded to this becoming an official WP policy, but having anything at all, whether guideline, policy or whatever, is inevitably going to inspire some trolls to be mischievous. That's a given, but I think the advantages outweigh the risks. Also, please see my final response to the above thread about trolls. JackofOz 04:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Without commenting on what you should do if someone says "Don't come any closer or I'll jump" can we all agree that, in the absence of other extenuating circumstances, one probably should not come any closer? The first rule of medicine is primum non nocere, or "first do no harm." We may not be able to stop someone from jumping, but we certainly don't want to be the trigger, and we certainly don't want to laugh at them, or say "Go ahead." It seems to me that a policy of "responding to potentially suicidal individuals" should be a general guide of what not to do. MoodyGroove 17:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

[edit] WP:BEANS and citations

Rockpocket, I am concerned about providing a citation for much of the information/statistics I am providing, since my source contains information that I would not want a suicidal person to see - namely, information on how to kill oneself. My source cites other sources, but most if not all of these are offline and I have not read them. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 18:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though Wikipedia is not censored, and how reliable is a source that provides information on killing oneself? (obviously the sources it cites may be reliable) Its no big deal if you wish to remove the request, but if this page was to make it to policy, then we should make sure that any stats we provide are accurate. Rockpocket 18:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is the statement we are discussing: "In one study, only 5% of suicides had been in contact with a hotline. Nearly half the calls hotlines get are pranks. Of the other half, many are depressed people wanting someone to talk to, but only a small fraction are actually suicidal."
Here is the reference my source provides: refs in Hendin, 1995, p208-10.// Bridge, TP et al "Suicide prevention centers. Ecological study of effectiveness." J Nerv and Mental Disease, 1977, v164, pp18-24.// Lester, D. "Effect of Suicide Prevention Centers on Suicide Rates in the United States" Health Services Reports, 1974 Jan-Feb; v89#1, pp37-39.
If I add more statistics, shall I include the references my source provides on the talk page?
The source is actually very well researched. The author has done a lot of reading on the topic, and provides a lot of citations, especially for statistics. He has also done a lot of research of his own, i.e. talking to suicidal people. About half of it is about the phenomena of suicide - psychology, biology, philosophy, history, statistics, etc. However, because he believes that botched suicide attempts - both botched suicide attempts where the goal is to die (failures can leave a person permanently disabled) and botched suicide attempts where the goal is to send a cry for help (where failure is fatality) - can be tragic, he does provide information on how to do it. He also provides some very gruesome pictures in the hope of discouraging people from going through with it.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Armed Blowfish. That is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. Rockpocket 19:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 : ) Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your recent additions. While they make a lot of sense for counselling suicidal people, aren't they somewhat counter the the original point of this proposal (i.e. that we are not professionals, we we should simply refer them to help without getting involved in any counselling)? suggestions like "it is recommended that you ask generic questions" and "not press the person to answer questions they are uncomfortable with" is completely in contrast with the basis of the lead summary. Rockpocket 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we aren't a counselling service. However, we can still be a friend to the person. The person may fear counselling, and prefer to talk to fellow Wikipedians. I guess that would be more relevant in the case of an established editor, with friends here, who is considering suicide. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but in trying to draft policy we have to be careful to have a core message. Either we are recommending we should engage suicidal people or we are suggesting we should not, we can't do both. If we are suggesting the latter (and I was under the impression that that was the consensus), then providing advice on how we should do the former is classic WP:BEANS. At a personal level, if there was a fellow Wikipedia who I felt I "knew" who was feeling suicidal, I may well follow your advice on engagement (probably off-wiki). However, that is my personal choice and nothing to do with Wikipedia; its certainly not something we should be recommending because it is totally out with the scope and purpose of the project. I feel for any policy (or even guideline) to have any chance of succeeding, we simply need to describe how best to deflect suicidal people from the project towards appropriate help, with the aim of minimizing the impact for them or us. Rockpocket 20:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know what consensus is, as I do not believe this has been talked about for very long. However, the two are not mutually exclusive. We can leave the choice up to individual editors - talk to the person or recommend they call a hotline. We can provide advice on both, although more advice on the former, as it is far more involved.
As for the scope and purpose of the project, I would say anything where a life is at stake falls under WP:IAR.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thats an entirely sensible idea, however if thats what we are saying then we don't need a policy. Policies do not say "you can do this or you can do that - the choice is up to you." They are prescriptive and instructive. I think the text as it stands makes a very informative essay, though. Rockpocket 23:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I see BEANS as another way of saying "Don't give negative instructions". The recent additions to the guidelines are not that. They're not telling us not to engage the person and ask them personal questions etc. Rather, they're suggesting we do engage the person. I want some more time to consider this more carefully, but my response for now is that, while it is good advice for real-life face-to-face or over-the-phone situations, I can't see how it would work well here. We take pains to point out at the top that we are not a counselling service, yet this is veering very close to exactly that. JackofOz 21:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. We could, perhaps, provide a link on this page to another site with information about how to talk a suicidal person through their problems. However, in my opinion, this sort of in-depth discussion does not belong in a Wikipedia policy or guideline (proposal.) Also, I question whether the second quote really is necessary. S.dedalus 21:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why does this exist?

Surely this is just instruction creep. This is a solution looking for a problem. Do we really have a major problem here, on-wiki, with nutcases threatening to top themselves all the time? Damned if I've noticed much of it. The one really major time this did happen, we were just being trolled.

Quite apart from that, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We are not the social services. Getting involved in real-life dramas is not our job: letting ourselves getting sucked into that is tantamount to endorsing disruption. Someone does threaten suicide, try to contact the relevant authorities with whatever information is available - checkuser for IP if need be - and leave it at that. How tricky can it be? All this stuff about "being a good listener" is irrelevant to our goals as an encyclopedia. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 12:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's happened twice that I know about. And both times I handled the matter with common sense. The swifter and quieter, the better. DurovaCharge! 13:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Anything that involves human life falls under WP:IAR. Human life is more important than encyclopaedias. Also, there are bound to be some cases where the person is serious. And for that matter, there is less difference between a seriously suicidal person and someone just making a "cry for help" than you might think. Many people are caught on the edge, unsure if they want to kill themselves or not. Unfortunately, death is irreversible, and 100 decisions to live can be overridden by one decision to die.
Suicide is not illegal in all countries; not all governments are empowered to forcibly hospitalise a potentially suicidal person. Even so, the rate of suicide in hospitals, despite the tightly controlled environment, is 5x higher than the outside - is this because they were suicidal anyway, or did the conditions of the hospital push them over the edge? Either way, it becomes a moot point of you can convince the person not to kill him or her self.
Telling a suicidal person that "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We are not social services," would almost certainly be perceived by the person as meaning, "Just go kill yourself. Don't bother us: we don't care about you."
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 15:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I believe this proposal (now two proposals) springs from the highest motivations, I've had several months to think about the decision I reached in December. Haven't seen anything here that I didn't consider at that time. The bottom line is, the only really useful and compassionate option at our disposal is to alert the appropriate authorities. Whatever the local scope of official action may be, I'd rather entrust the welfare of a suicidal person to trained professionals than to amateur strangers. And any formal essay, policy, or guideline on the subject would be counterproductive. These events have been rare enough to handle on an ad hoc basis. If you wish to help suicidal people then by all means become a trained volunteer for a suicide crisis hotline in your real world community. That would save more lives than any effort here at Wikipedia. DurovaCharge! 15:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Frequently, suicidal people may prefer something less formal, like a friend, over trained professionals. It is not uncommon for suicidal people to have had problems with authority figures in the past - the authorities may frighten them. So, for some reason, some of them have chosen to come here rather than call a hotline or the authorities. See the statistics I added to the List of crisis hotlines section. Very few suicidal people use those hotlines.
As for me, helping suicidal people on-wiki and helping them off-wiki are not mutually exclusive.  : )
Oh, and see the Should we call the authorities? section I added. Perhaps you could add to the pros section.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 18:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
We are not here to be friends with anyone, either. We're here to build an encyclopedia. That's not hard to understand. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, human life is an ethical issue - far more important than encyclopaedias. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If there is anyone to be genuinely helped - which there hasn't been as of yet, which is why these are instruction creep, so far just trolls - we are likely to be most effective simply by dealing with it quietly through contacting the relevant people. Not by wasting our time with some huge palaver. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 18:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
How can you tell if they are a troll? And what is a troll, in this context? Someone who wants help but is not actually serious about killing him or her self? Many people are on the edge - seriously considering suicide, but also seriously hoping to find a way to end the pain another way, making suicide unnecessary. And, as I have also explained, they might not want involvement from the so-called "relevant people". — Armed Blowfish (mail) 18:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
"Getting involved in real-life dramas is not our job" : The point is that, like it or not, as soon as someone posts a suicide message, we're involved. We don't ask for such messages, they just arrive. The question then is, what's the most appropriate way to respond to them. This proposal would not see us getting any further involved in the person's life, except to say "We're not the guys you should be speaking to, try these other ones instead". Same as we do for medical and legal questions. Some previous responses to suicide messages have been a mish-mash. This is just going to be a few pointers about how to operate in these real-life situations that potentially involve someone taking their own life. Anything we can do to operate on the "do no harm" philosophy is in everybody's best interests. JackofOz 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that by coming here they have made us involved. Well said. As to what to do when they get here, telling them to go elsewhere will probably be perceived as a rejection. It may seem like an oversensitive response, but someone that hopeless is likely to be oversensitive. However, if an editor does not feel capable of handling the situation, it is understandable to direct the person elsewhere. (I recommend the Samaritans. They keep all matters relating to suicide confidential, which may be a concern for the suicidal person.) However, if you are going to send the suicidal person elsewhere, I would strongly recommend careful wording to make it sound as little like a rejection as possible, bearing in mind that no wording on this is immune from being seen as a rejection. I tried to provide guidance on this here, but perhaps better advice can be given.
It could also depend on whether the individual is a newbie at the help desk, or an established editor. A newbie who comes to Wikipedia just to seek help relating to depression might very well be just as happy to speak to a Samaritan as a stranger at the help desk, if concerns about confidentiality were allayed. An established editor probably does want help from their friends on Wikipedia, not some stranger, like a Samaritan, on a suicide hotline.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split into two proposals

Since different people seem to be going in totally different directions here. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me. I would support Wikipedia:Do not engage suicidal individuals, but oppose Wikipedia:Helping suicidal individuals. If only for legal reasons, I would argue that it is important that we have an established position on what we should do in these unfortunate circumstances. Rockpocket 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose Wikipedia:Do not engage suicidal individuals. It strikes me as insensitive to suicidal persons, unlikely to help any of them and likely to push a few of those who truly care about our response, like established editors who are suicidal, over the edge. Additionally, it goes so far as to try to prevent editors who feel they can handle it from trying to be a friend to a suicidal person. (Technically, it says "provide therapy", but people seem to think that my idea of being a friend in this situation counts as therapy.) I personally would not ignore a cry for help, where someone's life could be at stake, simply because some policy or guideline told me to. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't support the splitting of this into 2 separate discussions. Undoubtedly some of the same issues are going to be discussed at both places, and with different but overlapping sets of people involved. This confuses the debate, and polarises it. As they stand, both of them have a "This page in a nutshell" that says we are not a counseling service and people should be directed to a professional crisis line. @ Armed Blowfish, I don't quite understand why you initiated the split, but are still arguing against one of the positions on this page; each proposal has its own talk page now. JackofOz 00:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that is only as insensitive to suicidal persons as WP:SPAM is to spammers and WP:VANDAL is to vandals. Wikipedia is not the place to spam, vandalise or seek help when contemplating suicide and our polices/guidelines should reflect that. The primary purpose is to minimize the impact of those on the encyclopaedia, not to "help" those than do it. If individual editors wish to personally engage spammers or vandals to try and help them, no policy is stopping them from doing so, but neither is there a policy for instructing us how to do it. Same should go for our suicide policies. It simply is not in our remit as Wikipedians to deal with suicidal people. More than that, though, we could do more harm than good, and we could leave ourselves and the project open to legal issues if we are seen to sanction any advice other than "we can't help you, but professionals can". In dealing with anonymous suicidal people any advice can be bad advice. Since bad advice has the most tragic of consequences, the only acceptable proposal is to offer none.
Nothing in Wikipedia:Do not engage suicidal individuals forbids editors to do what they feel to be right (and there is always WP:IAR). But if someone decides to top themselves in a spectacular way after a well meaning Wikipedian decides to engage in some hopelessly amateur therapy, I would rather we - the community - can say "well, they were advised to tell the person to get professional help" rather than have to justify why are are formalising a process that, even implictly, encourages amateur counselling. Rockpocket 00:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
JackofOz, I split the proposal, not the discussion. The talk pages for the two proposals redirect here.  : ) —This is part of a comment by Armed Blowfish , which was interrupted by the following:
Oops. Thanks, Armed Blowfish. I've struck out most of my post, but one point is still valid. JackofOz 02:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, JackofOz.  : ) I just fixed it. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Rockpocket, Wikipedia:Do not engage suicidal individuals says, "Never provide a medical diagnosis or attempt to personally provide a counseling service." (emphasis original) Yes, I would ignore that, but if I am going to follow WP:IAR, should I not argue against it becoming policy or guideline in the first place?
While I believe it is illegal in the United States to assist or encourage suicide - e.g. blatantly say that you think someone should kill him or her self or provide instructions on how to do it, I can't actually find anything on the internet saying that the United States government requires its citizens to take a specific course of action in preventing a person from providing suicide. This United States government page suggests taking the person seriously, listening, getting them help and staying with them.
Spammers and vandals are not, to our knowledge, in any danger. They hurt Wikipedia, but they don't need to. Suicidal people are very different. They aren't intentionally hurting Wikipedia, but they are thinking of hurting themselves. The fact that they are seeking help is actually a good thing. That they are trying to look for help indicates that they have hope that help is possible. Hopelessness is actually a better indicator of likeliness to commit suicide than depression. (I can give you more details on the study, if you like.) The fact that they trust us enough, and have enough confidence in us, to come to us for help, is actually a sort of compliment. If someone is suicidal, it is better for them to come somewhere, even Wikipedia, looking for help, than to quietly kill themself without a word to anyone.
If someone killed themself after talking to a Wikipedian, that Wikipedian would more likely be the subject of sympathy than criticism. This is how it should be - some people will kill themselves even when friends, volunteers, and professionals do their best to help them. People may kill themselves, but that doesn't make it the fault of the people around them. (Of course, if someone raped or otherwise abused the person who killed themself, that's another story, but as for the rest of survivors of suicide - it is not their fault.)
Back to what is best for the suicidal person - from their perspective not doing anything is a form of action. It is an action of uncaring. Not doing anything at all is generally worse than trying and failing. At least, by trying, you are showing that you care enough to give the person the time of day.
Also, it is possible I only think this because I have talked to so many suicidal people, but helping them isn't as hard as you might think. Yes, it requires sympathy and it can be stressful, but if you just listen, you will learn a lot as you go.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I feel the best of both proposals could be combined. Other Wikipedia policies cover the fact that discussions should stay on the topic of Wikipedia; this page could clarify how this can be applied sensitively in this difficult case - both for the benefit of the person talking of self-harm (since encouraging the use of such channels may not be in their long-term best interest, & to stop unhelpful or unkind comments potentially being made) and also for the benefit of editors faced with this issue being raised, who may feel stressed and responsible if unadvised. It could also clarify that not engaging in discussion of this topic doesn't mean not engaging with the person, who could be supported to be/stay a part of Wikipedia if they wanted. And presumably it could clarify that if people wanted to discuss things in a personal capacity, being clear that they are not acting in any Wikipedia role, that is a different thing - and could perhaps just link to professional pages/resources giving tips on that? EverSince 04:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I might be confused about what you are saying. The second proposal, Wikipedia:Helping suicidal individuals, does suggest a few different possibilities for editors to choose from, if that is what you mean. Or are you saying that we can talk to the person, but should dodge the topic of suicide? This tends to be strongly discouraged when dealing with suicidal people, and can be perceived as not caring. In fact, there is wide agreement that it is good to bring up the topic of suicide with a depressed person. Asking "are you suicidal" will not render a previously non-suicidal person suicidal. In the event that the person is suicidal, it can help them feel a bit more understood and free to talk about the issue. On the other hand, it is often helpful to discuss things which are related, but not obviously so, e.g. how the person's life has been going in general, as this may provide insight into the reasons they are suicidal. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually I do very much agree that it's usually best to be open and honest about suicide and self-injury - if you're engaged in a safe personal relationship with a person that is intended to be therapeutic. I guess I'm suggesting Wikipedia relationships should focus on Wikipedia (as far as I'm aware of existing Wikipedia policy), but that guidelines could help this be achieved sensitively and caringly (and perhaps give tips for those with more personal relationships?) EverSince 05:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC) p.s. when I said about supporting the person, I meant just in the usual Wikipedia ways, helping someone to contribute and achieve things. EverSince 05:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I'd say it is best to let the suicidal person pick the venue for discussion, they may often prefer a private setting, like email. As such, if you want to help the person personally, it would be a good idea to make sure they know how to contact you privately. I personally include an email link in my signature, although if the user did not have an account that would be insufficient. Anyway, I added a paragraph on it to Wikipedia:Helping_suicidal_individuals#Basics_of_responding_to_suicidal_people. Given the probability that the person will want to talk privately, I'm sure Wikipedia can survive the situations when suicidal people don't want to talk privately. ; ) Armed Blowfish (mail) 06:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
But if it's better for editors to respond via email anyway, then there really isn’t any need for a section in the (proposed) policy governing how to talk to a suicidal person. Wikipedia, and Wikipedia policy in particular, doesn’t usually give advice on how to handle situations outside of the encyclopedia. As per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. WikiHow is better suited to that kind of thing. S.dedalus 06:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I still believe situations where life is at stake are more important than encyclopaedias, so I'd ignore WP:NOT on this issue. If the situation starts on Wikipedia, and might continue there if the person does not choose to use email, it's the least Wikipedia can do to provide some advice on how to continue. It doesn't need to be policy - guideline could be more appropriate, since it would be providing guidance. Also, I think WP:NOT applies to the article namespace. The WP:MOS is an instruction manual, as are many help pages. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 07:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
But WP:MOS and the other help pages instruct people on aspects of how to use Wikipedia. What you are proposing is a page that would essentially instruct users on how to handle a suicide crisis. S.dedalus 19:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Suicide crises happen on Wikipedia, whether we like it or not. We may as well do what we can to give editors advice on handling it. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject of people who want to help suicidal individuals?

I just thought that it might be a good idea to have a WikiProject of people who want to help out in situations like this. People at the help desk, who feel that these things are too hard to handle, could contact members of the WikiProject when suicidal people came looking for help. I haven't really thought this through yet. Thoughts? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 06:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone else will probably say this, so it might as well be me. Esperanza made tentative steps towards something like this, eventually leading to the creation of things like Stress alerts. And just so you know, I was originally a member of Esperanza, but I chose to leave it, and eventually supported its deletion. I hope this isn't opening up a whole other can of worms. --Kyoko 06:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Leaving life is a more serious issue than just leaving Wikipedia. Also, Esperanza's stress alerts page appears to have survived. I was actually thinking a structure more like the Mediation Committee, except for helping suicidal people, rather than with content disputes, with some ideas from the Samaritans mixed in. On my talk page, Rockpocket made the very good suggestion of creating a WikiProject dedicated towards improving suicide-related articles, where one could just happen to find editors who could also help suicidal individuals on Wikipedia. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 07:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to trivialize the matter. Last fall, I tried to take my own life, and the only warning signs I left on Wikipedia were some messages on the Stress alerts page, culminating in (if I remember correctly) a message saying something like, "I'm sorry, please take care of each other. Goodbye."
I guess what I'm trying to say is that not everybody is going to say outright that they are suicidal. So you have that problem of trying to accurately judge the mood of someone who is potentially very far away. You also have the problems of responsibility and privacy, as have been mentioned before.
It's late, I'll think more about it and get back to you, OK? --Kyoko 07:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, I have been involved with WP:RO and would like to raise awareness of it. I think it's a good program, as it helps editors with RL issues, including depression. Encyclopedic and community merit for creating a suicide "help" program might be then justified on that precedent. However - and this is a big however - depression and suicide, while related and sometimes have a causal relationship, are vastly different in severity (especially the "I've been having a terrible month" sort of problems, lesser so the clinical/chronic depression issues).
As such, I do not think trying to support productive editors is a bad thing, and we've seen many times before it actually has been a good thing. I just don't think making a WikiProject devoted to helping suicidal individuals. regular editors or not, is a good idea - at the worst, it's grossly inappropriate, unencyclopedic, and perhaps counter-productive. This is going to sound cold, I know, but it's what I've been thinking: there is a difference between having somebody randomly on the Internet try to use us as a support forum, and editors that have real life issues.
Again, mind the utilitarian/cruel tone, but the justification for programs like RO is ultimately that it helps editors return to editing, not simply a counseling forum. In that sense, I think we should approach the issue of suicide with extreme caution while keeping it separate from the other programs like RO that are both helpful to the project and to the community. I am in support of support (excuse the pun) to productive editors as far as we can help them without it being too serious of business - namely, a matter of life and death. -Wooty Woot? contribs 09:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose what Wooty said is what I'm trying to get at: there's only so much that an online encyclopedia website can feasibly do. Individual members of Wikipedia might be able to intervene on a personal level, if they have already gained the trust of a particular individual and know how to contact that person. A full-scale WikiProject based around helping suicidal individuals, on the other hand, would be unavoidably limited in the amount of real help it could provide, and the project might also expose the Foundation to legal troubles.
I'm not saying that people who say they are severely depressed or suicidal should be ignored. On the contrary, I think they should be treated with compassion, and gently steered towards more appropriate support. Perhaps they could be "talked through" the immediate crisis, preferably through private means, and then encouraged to seek help in real life. This is probably better done on an individual basis rather than as a formal structure. --Kyoko 15:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand what you mean, but please correct me if I am mistaken. Such a WikiProject as I suggested would be more helpful for suicidal individuals at the help desk — for established editors, it would be nearly as bad as recommending a suicide hotline. And it is harder to understand someone over millions of meters of cables. A lot of clues - body language, tone of voice, daily activities, surrounding environment, etc. - are missing. Suicide hotlines often have the same problem, although at least they can hear tone of voice. Without all of that, it is far easier befriend someone who seeks an ear than one who doesn't. (It would still be easier to befriend someone seeking an ear even if you did have face-to-face contact with the person.)
But while we can't resolve real-life issues that may be depressing a person, or even understand them beyond what we are told, listening usually does have some value. Does it mean that we can always change people's minds? Certainly not. But its worth a try.
As far as legality goes, I think such an effort would be protected in many countries, including the United States, by Good Samaritan laws.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 17:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think listening is good, but in this case, it is a poor substitute for professional help. That being said, there may be cases where on-wiki engagement might be better than no help at all. The absolute worst thing to do would be to leave someone convinced that nobody cares about her, either through ignoring her entirely, or worse, mocking her. I'd say something more if I could, but I'm just not sure what the best way to react would be. We really need the input of somebody who has some professional experience dealing with this. --Kyoko 01:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe someone at Category:Wikipedian psychologists could help? S.dedalus 02:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
We repeat WP is "an encylopedia" but this question reveals that it is more precise to think of it as a project engaging volunteers to create an encyclopedia. In fact it is one of the largest volunteer organisations in the world. Obviously it grew too quickly to be able to set up the policies and structures that most other voluntary organisations would have, but it is now our responsibility to try and set up those appropriate policies and structures. The volunteers offer their free time to create the encyclopedia and they have the right to expect a little - not necessarily much, but a little - back in return. That implies that we need basic volunteer support facilities. For illustration, imagine if someone you knew joined the charity Médecins sans frontières, went to assist in a war zone, and became traumatised and suicidal. The charity might not be able to prevent the suicide, but you would expect them to have some procedures in place and to do what they could, either directly or by referral. Now WP is obviously in a very different situation. Encyclopedia editing is not generally so stressful, and not so important either as giving medical treatment. But it does have its own stresses, it may be the case that it disproportionately attracts people with mental health issues (insomnia to give the most obvious), and it has many more volunteers than MSF does. Now, I don't know what the appropriate procedures might be for Wikipedia, so I am going to refer the problem on by emailing the Samaritans, which is the best-known organisation for suicidal people in the UK, and asking them if they have a view. I suggest that other editors could contact similar organisations in the USA, Canada, Australia etc., and then we pool the advice. I would have thought at the very least that we should have a standard message - that would not read like a standard message - with a list of helplines. And a list of do's and don'ts for dealing with editors who appear to be vulnerable. In the longer term we should establish a volunteer support system. Why? Because any organisation with this number of volunteers needs to have one. Would you work for a large corporation that did not have a human resources department? Itsmejudith 11:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I'm torn about the issue. At one time, I would have wholeheartedly supported the idea of setting up a support system as Judith mentioned. Now, I'm not sure how practical that would be. I still think that people who talk about contemplating suicide should be engaged in a supportive manner. I'm just concerned that if these efforts were structured formally, it could open up the Foundation to legal difficulties, as this could be construed as giving medical advice. Furthermore, the people involved with such a WikiProject might potentially say the wrong thing, out of inexperience or lack of training. From what I've read, (A Slender Thread by Diane Ackerman, ISBN 0-679-77133-6 , if you are interested) volunteers for suicide hotlines undergo a fair amount of screening and training before they actually work. On an open project like Wikipedia, we would have a harder time trying to set up such training. --Kyoko 12:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a number of the points above - that online help on Wikipedia can be better than no help, and that a volunteer organisation of this size really should have some sort of support network for this sort of thing. As for legality, check out the Good Samaritan law article.
For an idea of what kind of training hotline folks get, you can look at this page, which provides links to overviews of courses that the Samaritans provide. Another commonly used technique in training is for a teacher to pretend to be suicidal.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Our article on Good Samaritan law states the following:
“If aid begins, the responder must not leave the scene until: 1. It is necessary in order to call for needed medical assistance. 2. Somebody of equal or higher ability can take over. 3. Continuing to give aid is unsafe”
Can Wikipedia guarantee that the responder will not leave the scene? I’m also not sure whether Good Samaritan laws would apply to situations in which an organization has a standing policy of providing aid to people. The article says that:
“[Good Samaritan laws] are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death.”
S.dedalus 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The first quote is from the US law: it won't apply to everyone. To those it does apply to: were we ever at the scene in the first place? An with so many Wikipedians, wouldn't the "somebody of equal or higher ability can take over" be easy to fulfill if an editor suddenly needed to take a long enough wikibreak to count as possibly leaving the scene?
One thing in common in both US and Canada law, the two discussed in depth in the article, is that the Good Samaritan law does not apply when help is provided for-profit. Since Wikipedia doesn't even have advertisements, and the editors are not paid, we should be safe on that count. One thing that is of concerns in the US law is "In some jurisdictions, Good Samaritan laws only protect those that have had basic first aid training and are certified by the American Heart Association, American Red Cross, American Safety and Health Institute or other health organization. In other jurisdictions, any rescuer is protected from liability, granted the responder acted rationally."
Certainly, an international lawyer's opinion on the matter would be helpful, but the article also says that in some countries (Germany,Italy, Japan, France, Belgium, Andorra, and Spain) and Quebec, giving help can be required. And, law aside, trying to provide help is a Good Thing.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia originally had its primary server in Florida, and Wikimedia Foundation is based in St. Petersburg, Florida, USA so I would think that Wikipedia, and any policies associated with Wikipedia, would fall under the jurisdiction of US law. Specifically this law I believe. Then again I’m no lawyer; this is a question for an expert. I think the big question is whether the laws would apply to individual Wikipedians or to Wikipedia as a whole. If it’s the latter then I don’t see how the Good Samaritan Act could apply. I think the distinction may lie in whether or not the editor in question acts upon any existing Wikipedia policy. S.dedalus 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If it would apply to individual Wikipedians, and I suspect it would, well... many countries have Good Samaritan laws, some even requiring that people provide assistance. The thing is, there are variations on it. Hence why an international lawyer's help would be useful.... — Armed Blowfish (mail) 09:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

A Wiki is a piece of software that is designed for asynchronous collaboration. Are we not trying to overextend the capabilities of what a Wiki is intended for? This WikiProject strikes me as well intentioned, but I don't think we should be spending resources on Wikipedia codifying this particular aspect of the world in this manner. In a sense, it is good to see Wikipedians reaching out and being concerned for those who seem to need help, but this goes a little beyond what I think Wikipedia is really intended for. If anything, I would incline on turning these resource pages into meaningful articles which someone can link to if they wish. There is no reason why the methodologies and philosophies listed here cannot be researched further to make viable articles. --HappyCamper 13:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A wiki is a piece of software, but the English-language Wikipedia is a collaborative volunteer encyclopedia-development project. Both the "Don't respond" and the "How to respond" project proposals have advice that seems to my untrained eye to be useful and that other editors would find useful. We already advise editors on the basics of how to work collaboratively. By this stage in the development of the project, we should also be able to help them cope with the more difficult cases that they may come across. Itsmejudith 15:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A better name?

I definitely oppose the current names for these two proposals. Especially the “Do not engage suicidal individuals” one. That proposal isn’t proposing that we should not respond to suicidal individuals, it’s proposing that we should “not offer a counseling service.” It explicitly states that we should respond to suicidal people, but that we should also refer them to an organization that can provide them with better assistance. There is nothing wrong with an organization taking this stance. After all, a “flesh and blood” reference desk in a library usually uses this strategy. Now think how much harder it would be for us, without being able to see or hear the person, to effectively council people. The other name, “Helping suicidal individuals,” also seems to be a poor choice to me. It naively implies that any response to a suicidal person will be helpful. In reality it is very hard to judge what will and will not help a person with severe mental or emotional issues. Any thoughts on this? And would anybody mind if these names were changed? S.dedalus 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither are suggesting a counseling service. The latter suggests befriending them - far more amateur than counseling. As for the first one, I know the name isn't perfect, but it seemed better than "do not counsel suicidal individuals" since both agree with that, and better than "do not talk to suicidal individuals" since giving someone phone numbers might be considered talking but not engaging. Perhaps the second one could be called "trying to help suicidal individuals" since it is an effort, not a guarantee? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We have (er, had) a live case

... at the Miscellaneous Ref Desk. JackofOz 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we did ("plz help im seriously depressed"), until someone deleted it. Unfortunately, the edit summary was the rather charming "fuck you nigger", but the post itself makes no reference to those. JackofOz 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Here it is. Edit to add Actually he has tried to get our help three times. Take a look at this. I guess he got frustrated with filling in the edit summaries. . . S.dedalus 05:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I’ve responded as per one of the proposed policies. . .S.dedalus 06:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be reasonable, for completeness, to show the first two attempts. 1, 2. I reverted them, and the third, as trolling; I was not aware of the RTSP policy. The poster then posted a personal attack, vandalised five pages and was blocked for 24 hours. All in all, not his night. --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Why should these be two seperate proposals? They'd be more likely to be accepted as a guideline if merged...

I think this is unlikely to gain consensus anyway, but still...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a complete lack of consensus as to which attitude should be taken regarding suicidal individuals, and the opinions have divided into two main camps: Wikipedia:Do not engage suicidal individuals and Wikipedia:Helping suicidal individuals. As for accuracy and propriety, I'll be interested when a bridge is built over this chasm. *shrug* V-Man - T/C 23:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I think the two proposals should be merged. For instance perhaps we could recommend that users at least provide links to mental health services as per Wikipedia:Do not engage suicidal individuals (which does not recommend a policy of no engagement by the way.) However, we could then also create a fully sourced Wikipedia article called perhaps Methods for responding to a suicide crises. (It would probably contain much of what is now in the Wikipedia:Helping suicidal individuals proposal. ) Then somewhere in the main “Responding to suicidal individuals” guideline we could mention that users can also respond using the Methods for responding to a suicide crises page for information if they feel they need to. This way we would have a basic policy that any individual can follow, but we would also have an extended method left open to users. Wikipedia would officially recognize the basic response, however the door would be left open for users to engage more closely with the suicidal person on their own initiative. What do you think? S.dedalus 06:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean give users a choice between just listing hotlines or taking a more involved approach, the Wikipedia:Helping suicidal individuals proposal already does that. A few things to consider: listing hotlines might send the message that you don't care to the suicidal person. ("I don't care what you do, just please don't bother me. You can bother these people instead.") On the other hand, many people may not feel capable of taking a more involved approach, and recommending hotlines may be the best alternative for them. But if one does feel capable, I would not recommend listing hotlines until one feels one can't handle any more. (And, perhaps at that point, it will sound like, "I honestly believe these people can help you better than I can." Or maybe it will only sound like, "I'm sick of your suicidal threats, go bother these other people if you want to, but leave me alone." But the odds go up.) Certainly, recommending a suicide hotline is more caring that deleting the person's message as "trolling" or not responding at all. But it's not an optimal response.
Some comments on the on creating an article: I am guilty of judging sources based on my own experience with suicidal people rather than Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, plain original research, and using a source that gives detailed information on how to kill oneself (which we really don't want suicidal people to see, even if Wikipedia is not censored) in addition to a lot of insight into the suicidal mind. In the Wikipedia: namespace, I think selectively representing sources that show an understanding viewpoint, original research, and not citing a source because it says things I wouldn't want some people to see is okay: but it would not be good for the article namespace.
Thanks for asking my opinion,
Armed Blowfish (mail) 12:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the difference in my proposal is that the official guideline that Wikipedia would advocate would be one that directs people towards expert help (a hotline). Wikipedia would just not expressly forbid or encourage people to use their own initiative in befriending the person. We would simply point the intervening editor to a Wikipedia article that could help them with the principles of suicide prevention. This would neatly solve the legal issues, and would protect Wikipedia from any possible media fallout that would ensue from a suicide linked to help provided on Wikipedia—
Okay, here’s how I see it. We need a guideline, and we need it fast because people are posting suicidal messages on Wikipedia all the time. (See above.) I think we need a basic policy that may not be perfect but that can be followed by all editors. I see that the Wikipedia:Helping suicidal individuals# Directing the person elsewhere already is there for this purpose. It’s better that nothing. However, some editors, like yourself, obviously have a lot more experience and knowledge in this aria and are better qualified to help. In this case you can simply use Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and no one will question your right to engage in a more in-depth response to a suicidal person. I simply feel that Wikipedia should not be providing all this information on helping a suicidal person inside a Wikipedia namespace. Better to creat an article. Also I don’t necessarily think that redirecting a person to other sources of help will make them feel rejected. I tried to convey this with my response to a suicidal user here. What do you think of this response? S.dedalus 21:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with merging the pages. On the extent to which editors should get personally involved, it seems that we should shortly be able to find a compromise. Some editors will not want to get involved at all. Perhaps they doubt their own skills, or they are feeling vulnerable themselves, or they have had experiences in the past that make them very wary, or just they are very short of time. There are all these valid reasons and more. On the other hand some editors will feel that they can extend a hand of friendship; perhaps they have professional skills they can bring to bear. It is hard to make a list of "do's", but there are some "don'ts" that can definitely be included in a merged page. Itsmejudith 11:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I get what S.dedalus is saying. Could we have a "you are permitted to do this instead of providing hotline numbers" explicitly written into your version? And perhaps the page providing guidance on befriending suicidal individuals could be a Wikipedia-space essay, rather than an article? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I started this merge, but since my bias is rather obvious, I'm sure it still needs more explanation as to why giving a person a phone number is a good thing, besides being easy. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would support both your suggestions. One reason I suggested that the page providing guidance on befriending suicidal individuals be in an article rather than a namespace, is that it seems much of the information could be usefully and more accessible if incorporated into the Suicide intervention page for instance. However, an essay could be just as effective (although not as accessible to the general public). I think that we primarily have to be careful about appearing to be giving medical help here. We just have to make sure that it is clear that any assistance provided to a suicidal editor beyond the basic “call this number” is done so on the assisting editors own initiative. Separating the how too information into an essay sounds like a workable compromise to me. S.dedalus 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was your idea, so have fun and fix the merge up.  : ) I tried to start it, but since my own opinion is that the basic "call this number" is far from an optimal solution, I doubt I did a very good job. As for the guidance on befriending such individuals that I wrote, I am afraid that it doesn't meet encyclopaedic standards.
Perhaps it could be worded such that the "call this number" method is a minimum level of help, but does not exclude a more involved approach?
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I’ve made some big changes now (for the better I hope). At the moment I’m thinking that Wikipedia:Helping suicidal individuals will become the proposed essay? Also, I’ll see what I can do with the “call this number” section. S.dedalus 22:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Dealing with improper responses from other editors to a suicide message" section seems rather harsh to me. Perhaps you could try stealing from Wikipedia:Helping suicidal individuals#Dealing_with_improper_responses_from_other_editors_to_a_suicide_message? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it now? I got confused and did that edit in two saves. You may have seen the original one? It now advocates a warning only in those cases where an editor really should have known better (humorous or derisive reply, not revert). S.dedalus 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. "You're just seeking attention," and "You're just threatening to do this to hurt other people," are common responses. An explanation that this is often not the case, and it is still a serious issue even when it is (some people who don't mean to kill themselves do), might be more helpful than some npa warning template. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point. . . In that sort of case an explanation in undeniably more appropriate. However, in the past we’ve had some comments that were incredibly unhelpful (at the best). What would you recommend as a reply for some of these coments? Just and explanation? Although some editors responded with a modicum of sense, the others are obviously willful mischief. S.dedalus 00:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting link. Some speculation:
  • The person requesting help on how to kill him or herself seems to be interested in making a suicidal gesture (he or she is interested in seeing the scares afterwards) - where the goal is to get the attention of people who could help make the person's life better, not to actually die. According to a Louis Dublin, a respected statistician, about a third of suicidal people fall in this category. This should still be taken seriously. People who want to make a suicidal gesture would not be resorting to such a serious measure if they were not in serious pain. Furthermore, a fair number of these intended "suicidal gestures" turn out to be fatal. The person should probably be informed that making a suicidal gesture could end up being lethal. Wouldn't be a bad idea to ask the person why, and listen to what he or she says.
  • The person who suggested carbon monoxide or chlorine poisoning might have been seriously suicidal at some point in his or her life. Those suggestions are relatively well-researched. Carbon monoxide poisoning is a high-lethality method. What the person doesn't know is that it is quite painful (talk about the worst headache you ever had), and waiting for a modern car to poison you with enough carbon monoxide is quite slow. So, that would be a slow and painful death. On the bright side, if someone walks in, you could make a full recovery with the proper medical treatment. I don't know as much about chlorine, but it also looks like a high-lethality, painful method. The person should probably be informed that these methods are in fact painful. Wouldn't be a bad idea to try to engage the person in a conversation.
  • The rest of the suggestions for how to kill oneself (sky-diving, setting oneself on fire, admitting to a crime) do not seem particularly serious, taking the issue too lightly. These people should probably be nudged that this is a serious issue, and if they don't have anything better to say they should just leave it alone.
  • The first two comments seem to be half-joking, half-well-intended. Some gentle advice on how to handle the issue better might be warranted.
  • The fourth comment isn't that bad - anti-depressants help some people. They don't always work, and occasionally make things work worse.
  • Last comment by the anon-IP is technically correct, but has an attitude of fear rather than genuine concern. A suicidal person might be offended by that. Some gentle nudging on better ways of handling the situation might be a good idea.
Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that seems like a good example why a guideline could help, because the overall impression given is probably quite bad to a genuinely suicidal person - people not being straight with you, or making fun of you, or telling you what you should or shouldn't do, or talking as if you weren't there. And no expression of any sadness or regret or whatever that a person may be feeling so awful they're considering this, no pointing towards any other online resources that might be helpful to the person. Looks like one of the editors tried to say something nice on the user's talk page though (although perhaps not actually true that things always get better) and that it maybe wasn't serious.
And at the end of the day it's allowing and encouraging discussion on a forum not intended for that purpose, and which is probably basically a bad choice of place to have any such discussions, both for Wikipedia and any suicidal persons. EverSince 09:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Very nice analyses, Armed Blowfish. If you really think a template would be counterproductive, I’ll simply add a link to policy on personal attacks. By the way chlorine gas poisoning is defiantly very painful and slow. [2]
EverSince — Yes I agree, and there are many more examples of why a policy is needed here. S.dedalus 04:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, S.dedalus.  : ) I could be wrong though; it's instinct, not an exact science. Perhaps a collection of common misperceptions, and why they are wrong, might be helpful.
I am nervous about bringing up how some suicidal methods are quite painful. While it's okay to bring up the topic of suicide to a depressed person, since talking about it won't cause them to be suicidal if they weren't already, you could bring up a method that they haven't thought of. So, if they bring up carbon dioxide poisoning, go ahead and tell them it's painful, but it might not be a good idea to bring up carbon dioxide poisoning on a list.
Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (mail) 05:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bystander effect

I disagree with the recent addition, because: a) it puts too much of a burden on editors to do something even if they don't want to/don't feel comfortable doing so; b) it sounds too much like an instruction; and c) it is a setup to make an editor feel guilty for not acting in the manner the section dictates. Anchoress 06:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, I don't believe Wikipedia is particularly prone the the Bystander effect. It pretty apparent that everyone seems to want a piece of the action around here, no more so than when there is Wikidrama to be squeezeed out of it. Rockpocket 07:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a good idea to me. There's a lot of stigma surrounding suicide in most places, leading people with suicidal feelings to feel isolated. Not receiving a response could very likely be worse than an imperfect one.
I'm not sure why contacting an administrator was recommended though. Administration being a technical role, many administrators may not feel qualified to handle it either, or may be unsure what to do besides block the user, which would be a bad idea. If we started a WikiProject of people interested in helping, we could link to that. However, it would need to have enough participants to handle the demand, or people would burn out quickly.
Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (mail) 07:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but the problem is that no matter how isolated an editor feels, it's wrong (in my opinion) to force responsibility onto other editors for dealing with that isolation. The way the section reads right now, it says, in a subtle way, that people who encounter a threat of suicide or a suicidal editor are somehow morally obligated to act because that editor might feel rejected and somehow worse if there's no response, and furthermore that the non-acting editors must bear some of the responsibility if something bad happens to the nominally suicidal editor. Anchoress 07:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's saying that you are morally obligated, so much as that you shouldn't be afraid to say something just because you might say the wrong thing. The wrong thing can still be better than nothing at all. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 07:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It says:

In the case of a potentially suicidal message on Wikipedia, not answering could do more harm than would an imperfect response. It is important to respond to any suicidal post; if you do not feel capable of doing this, seek help from any administrator at Wikipedia:List of administrators.

Saying 'not answering could do more harm than would an imperfect response' is saying doing nothing could be harmful, which I think is an unfair burden. And saying 'if you do not feel capable of doing this, seek help from any administrator at Wikipedia:List of administrators' is saying editors should do something. I think at the very least editors should not get the impression from this essay that they should act, and I think ideally editors should be made to feel by any essay or guideline that it is perfectly OK to do nothing. If nothing else, picture this: we convey a message in an essay or guideline that editors who come across a nominally suicidal editor should do something. So, an editor comes across a self-declared suicidal editor. S/he would rather do nothing. S/he does something, because the essay/guideline told them to. The suicidal editor kills her/himself. The editor who would have rather done nothing feels responsible because s/he had the feeling they were doing the wrong thing when they acted, but acted anyway because the essay/guideline instructed them to. Anchoress 08:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
With all this talk of how serious and potentially disastrous the subject is on the page, my opinion is that we need something that reminds users that just answering the suicide message is half the battle. Perhaps “A note about the Bystander effect” does not do this, in which case please make any modifications you see necessary. The section was intended to 1.) Emphasize that responding a message imperfectly is often better than not responding at all, and 2.) Clarify that a user is not obligated to respond to a message (except possibly where required by local law), but it would be nice if they could notify an experienced user of the problem. I believe that it implies no more responsibility of individual editors than would be placed on the observers of a person standing on a ledge. S.dedalus 05:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Agree

If someone is suicidal, they're screaming for help, I agree we should redirect them to a hotline. We may be the last chance for them.

Flubeca 19:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK Samaritans

I said I would email the UK Samaritans, the best known charity in the UK helping suicidal people. I did, and they have emailed me back and sent me a document about on-line interactions, as well as a prospectus for their training courses. I think it would be a good idea if some senior (i.e. paid) people in the Wikimedia Foundation were to take some training with this organisation or its equivalent in another English-speaking country. I would like to link to the documents they sent but don't know the best way to do this (while I stay anonmyous in WP, and the email account I used to correspond with them is different from the one I usually use for WP-related matters). Itsmejudith 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to reject

This guideline is not progressing and has little chance of gaining consensus. While a laudable goal, there is no evidence that the participants here have the expertise to determine how to deal with suicidal people. Well intentioned meddling could have devastating consequences. --Kevin Murray 11:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MFD seems appropriate. ALR 13:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No, no need. We don't need MfD, just tag as rejected and move on. Quite rightly. This is the silliest stuff that 'ere I saw, at least on-wiki. As a solution looking for a problem, it's instruction creep, and also potentially dangerous, as Kevin Murray pointed out. Moreschi Talk 13:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. --Kevin Murray 14:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This should have been rejected immediately

Suicide has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and there's little to suggest that it ever would more than speculation. This is instruction creep and totally fails WP:NOT. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA cover this and it should have been stopped there. What about dealing with murderers, pedophiles, and terrorists? It's more of just what Wikipedia is not in the business of doing.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't deal with it, that's why we send them to the nearest hotline. What's the problem? Wrad (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)