-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Agreed. I cannot access IRC from behind my corporate firewall in the US, and the London Metro police does not allow urgent crime reports to be sent via e-mail, so the next best thing was to hit this list, which, based on the near-constant drama feeds (As the Wiki turns, the Young and the Adminless, General Arbcom, etc. 8- ) ) demonstrates that it's monitored rather well.
I understand that it may have generated more "drama" than necessary, but, even if one person is reached in time over the next 50 years and 6000 hoaxes, it will still be worth it.
- --Avi
On 10/2/07, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that it may have generated more "drama" than necessary, but, even if one person is reached in time over the next 50 years and 6000 hoaxes, it will still be worth it.
Surely all the time that would be wasted responding to 6000 hoaxes over 50 years could be used to save more than one life.
Missing the point Anthony :)
On 02/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/2/07, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that it may have generated more "drama" than necessary, but, even if one person is reached in time over the next 50 years and 6000 hoaxes, it will still be worth it.
Surely all the time that would be wasted responding to 6000 hoaxes over 50 years could be used to save more than one life.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/2/07, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that it may have generated more "drama" than necessary, but, even if one person is reached in time over the next 50 years and 6000 hoaxes, it will still be worth it.
Surely all the time that would be wasted responding to 6000 hoaxes over 50 years could be used to save more than one life.
The opinion of the police is that responding to a case like this is not a waste of their time.
J.
On 02/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/2/07, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that it may have generated more "drama" than necessary, but, even if one person is reached in time over the next 50 years and 6000 hoaxes, it will still be worth it.
Surely all the time that would be wasted responding to 6000 hoaxes over 50 years could be used to save more than one life.
Could, but wouldn't be. Time isn't fungible.
On 10/2/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/2/07, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that it may have generated more "drama" than necessary, but, even if one person is reached in time over the next 50 years and 6000 hoaxes, it will still be worth it.
Surely all the time that would be wasted responding to 6000 hoaxes over 50 years could be used to save more than one life.
Could, but wouldn't be. Time isn't fungible.
Good point.
On 02/10/2007, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Agreed. I cannot access IRC from behind my corporate firewall in the US, and the London Metro police does not allow urgent crime reports to be sent via e-mail, so the next best thing was to hit this list, which, based on the near-constant drama feeds (As the Wiki turns, the Young and the Adminless, General Arbcom, etc. 8- ) ) demonstrates that it's monitored rather well.
No, the next best thing would probably have been to ring the police direct and point them to the information in the wikipedia, rather than spamming it across a list in the *hope* that somebody was in a position to action it.
I understand that it may have generated more "drama" than
necessary, but, even if one person is reached in time over the next 50 years and 6000 hoaxes, it will still be worth it.
I fundamentally disagree that this list should be misused for real-time actions such as this.
If nothing else, email is subject to various kinds of failures and delays, and this isn't something you would want to risk it on.
As a matter of experience and principle, historically it always seems to be a bad idea to encourage things that are off-topic to be included on a list, no matter how well meaning it might seen. I have never seen it end well, and this one didn't either; no matter how glad we are that everyone is OK, we still got punked.
- --Avi
On 10/2/07, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/10/2007, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Agreed. I cannot access IRC from behind my corporate firewall in the US, and the London Metro police does not allow urgent crime reports to be sent via e-mail, so the next best thing was to hit this list, which, based on the near-constant drama feeds (As the Wiki turns, the Young and the Adminless, General Arbcom, etc. 8- ) ) demonstrates that it's monitored rather well.
No, the next best thing would probably have been to ring the police direct and point them to the information in the wikipedia, rather than spamming it across a list in the *hope* that somebody was in a position to action it.
I understand that it may have generated more "drama" than
necessary, but, even if one person is reached in time over the next 50 years and 6000 hoaxes, it will still be worth it.
I fundamentally disagree that this list should be misused for real-time actions such as this.
If nothing else, email is subject to various kinds of failures and delays, and this isn't something you would want to risk it on.
As a matter of experience and principle, historically it always seems to be a bad idea to encourage things that are off-topic to be included on a list, no matter how well meaning it might seen. I have never seen it end well, and this one didn't either; no matter how glad we are that everyone is OK, we still got punked.
- --Avi
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
About six months ago, I was dealing with a similar incident with a kid in Chicago.
I spent two hours trying to get Chicago PD to take an out of town emergency report; They normally only take local "911" emergency calls. A city dispatch center operator couldn't figure out anyone who would accept the report there. They finally told me to give it to my local PD who would send Chicago PD a notification electronically. I think Danny at the Foundation office also got it in that way ahead of me.
"Call the police directly" is fine, if that works, if that's possible. Apparently it is not always possible.
Asking here or elsewhere on foundation or project lists or wiki or IRC for help in such a real life possible emergency is entirely appropriate, and we should not discourage anyone from doing so.
The rate of events like this is low, and even if it weren't, it's important.
On 02/10/2007, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
No, the next best thing would probably have been to ring the police direct and point them to the information in the wikipedia, rather than spamming it across a list in the *hope* that somebody was in a position to action it.
It was a reasonable expectation.
As a matter of experience and principle, historically it always seems to be a bad idea to encourage things that are off-topic to be included on a list, no matter how well meaning it might seen. I have never seen it end well, and this one didn't either; no matter how glad we are that everyone is OK, we still got punked.
Well, next time there's a similar occurrence, you can ignore it, if you think your conscience can take the risk of being proved horribly wrong.
I also reject your characterisation of this as not ending well; I think it ended as well as we could have expected.
On 10/2/07, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
No, the next best thing would probably have been to ring the police direct and point them to the information in the wikipedia, rather than spamming it across a list in the *hope* that somebody was in a position to action it.
Let's say I was the one who found the note. I personally have no idea how to phone the London police for an urgent matter from Kansas, USA. By the time I Googled some sort of instructions on how to do so, a timely e-mail to the list could already have prompted someone else to do so and the police would have already been on their way.
The odds of an e-mail failure or delay which would have prevented my plea for assistance from being disseminated are quite small; similar in fact to the odds of me locating appropriate instructions including a number one can dial from overseas, working my way through the bureaucracy of an unfamiliar governmental organization to the appropriate party to help me, and convincing them of the urgency of the matter, all in a timely fashion.
The important part was that the person who sent the request for assistance did so at all, rather than allowing the matter to go unreported under the assumption it was a hoax.
--Darkwind
On 02/10/2007, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
Let's say I was the one who found the note. I personally have no idea how to phone the London police for an urgent matter from Kansas, USA. By the time I Googled some sort of instructions on how to do so, a timely e-mail to the list could already have prompted someone else to do so and the police would have already been on their way.
I don't agree with this, I just looked up the phone number with google and found it within about 30 seconds (I found a UK-local free call number even more quickly). And if you called your local operator and explained, they could very, very probably do something for you, such as contact the UK operators who can sort it out.
Besides, the wikipedia already has a written process for this: WP:SUICIDE; and following a link brought me to: Wikipedia:Helping_suicidal_individuals#United_Kingdom which links me to the UK Samaritans.
Spamming this list with suicide threats is rather inappropriate (but not as inappropriate as ignoring it).
--Darkwind
On 03/10/2007, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Spamming this list with suicide threats is rather inappropriate (but not as inappropriate as ignoring it).
I think we need to be aware of the difference between a suicide /threat/ ("I am going to/I want to kill myself") and a suicide /note/ ("By the time you read this, I will be dead"). I see no other legitimate course of action in the latter case than contacting the local police immediately.
No, the next best thing would probably have been to ring the police direct and point them to the information in the wikipedia, rather than spamming it across a list in the *hope* that somebody was in a position to action it.
Phoning a non-local police force (esp. a foreign one) isn't that easy. I've just spent 5 minutes looking, and couldn't find any way of contacting the london police in an emergency other than "dial 999". I guess one could contact their local police and get them to contact the relevant force, but I'm not sure how well that would work.
If nothing else, email is subject to various kinds of failures and delays, and this isn't something you would want to risk it on.
No means of communication is perfect. What is the alternative?
As a matter of experience and principle, historically it always seems to be a bad idea to encourage things that are off-topic to be included on a list, no matter how well meaning it might seen. I have never seen it end well, and this one didn't either; no matter how glad we are that everyone is OK, we still got punked.
How is someone posting a suicide note to the English Wikipedia off-topic for a mailing list for discussion about the English Wikipedia?
Okay, maybe I just need more coffee, but can someone explain to me why in god's name an indef block is the desired response to a suicide note on-wiki?
On 10/2/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
No, the next best thing would probably have been to ring the police
direct
and point them to the information in the wikipedia, rather than spamming
it
across a list in the *hope* that somebody was in a position to action
it.
Phoning a non-local police force (esp. a foreign one) isn't that easy. I've just spent 5 minutes looking, and couldn't find any way of contacting the london police in an emergency other than "dial 999". I guess one could contact their local police and get them to contact the relevant force, but I'm not sure how well that would work.
If nothing else, email is subject to various kinds of failures and
delays,
and this isn't something you would want to risk it on.
No means of communication is perfect. What is the alternative?
As a matter of experience and principle, historically it always seems to
be
a bad idea to encourage things that are off-topic to be included on a
list,
no matter how well meaning it might seen. I have never seen it end well,
and
this one didn't either; no matter how glad we are that everyone is OK,
we
still got punked.
How is someone posting a suicide note to the English Wikipedia off-topic for a mailing list for discussion about the English Wikipedia?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/2/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, maybe I just need more coffee, but can someone explain to me why in god's name an indef block is the desired response to a suicide note on-wiki?
I haven't read the discussion on-wiki about any proposed block, but in this case I'd support an indef. block on the basis that it was a disruptive hoax.
--Darkwind
On 03/10/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, maybe I just need more coffee, but can someone explain to me why in god's name an indef block is the desired response to a suicide note on-wiki?
Well, once it's been confirmed as a hoax, an indef block is obviously appropriate. Before that, I'm not so sure. I guess it helps keep things under control by keeping everything they do on their talk page. I think it is also our standard response when someone dies - we block their account, since no-one should be using it any more, so anyone using it must be up to something.
I could've sworn it was confirmed as a hoax. Didn't the London Police Department say that it was just some lad's idea of a prank or something along those lines? Or where we referring to the general circumstances?
On 10/2/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/10/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, maybe I just need more coffee, but can someone explain to me why
in
god's name an indef block is the desired response to a suicide note
on-wiki?
Well, once it's been confirmed as a hoax, an indef block is obviously appropriate. Before that, I'm not so sure. I guess it helps keep things under control by keeping everything they do on their talk page. I think it is also our standard response when someone dies - we block their account, since no-one should be using it any more, so anyone using it must be up to something.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 03/10/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
I could've sworn it was confirmed as a hoax. Didn't the London Police Department say that it was just some lad's idea of a prank or something along those lines?
That is precisely what the Metropolitan Police said to me, yes.
Yes, I also spoke to the police at the time and they said that I could be assured that it was a hoax, the person was identified, spoken to by police officiers at the presence of his parents, and "strong words of advice" were given.
-- Moe
James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
That is precisely what the Metropolitan Police said to me, yes. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
...which is the best thing we could hope for. The situation ended well.
On 10/2/07, Moe Epsilon moe_epsilon@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, I also spoke to the police at the time and they said that I could be assured that it was a hoax, the person was identified, spoken to by police officiers at the presence of his parents, and "strong words of advice" were given.
-- Moe
James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
That is precisely what the Metropolitan Police said to me, yes. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 03/10/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
I could've sworn it was confirmed as a hoax. Didn't the London Police Department say that it was just some lad's idea of a prank or something along those lines? Or where we referring to the general circumstances?
I think the account was blocked before it was confirmed as a hoax. I'd have to go and look at timestamps to be sure, though, and it's past my bedtime.
From my estimation, from around the time of
the mailing lists and Kittybrewster confirming a police call onwiki (this is all prior to me getting a call back from the police), the editor was blocked about 20 minutes afterwards. -- Moe
Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think the account was blocked before it was confirmed as a hoax. I'd have to go and look at timestamps to be sure, though, and it's past my bedtime.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
On 10/2/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/10/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, maybe I just need more coffee, but can someone explain to me why in god's name an indef block is the desired response to a suicide note on-wiki?
Well, once it's been confirmed as a hoax, an indef block is obviously appropriate. Before that, I'm not so sure. I guess it helps keep things under control by keeping everything they do on their talk page. I think it is also our standard response when someone dies - we block their account, since no-one should be using it any more, so anyone using it must be up to something.
I think the logic is that it's disruptive and indicates someone we probably don't want to continue to have associated with the project, for both their and our good.
There may be exceptions and times when allowing them back makes sense eventually, but I can agree that block and freeze or delete pages is appropriate for first responders.
George Herbert wrote:
On 10/2/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/10/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, maybe I just need more coffee, but can someone explain to me why in god's name an indef block is the desired response to a suicide note on-wiki?
Well, once it's been confirmed as a hoax, an indef block is obviously appropriate. Before that, I'm not so sure. I guess it helps keep things under control by keeping everything they do on their talk page. I think it is also our standard response when someone dies - we block their account, since no-one should be using it any more, so anyone using it must be up to something.
I think the logic is that it's disruptive and indicates someone we probably don't want to continue to have associated with the project, for both their and our good.
There may be exceptions and times when allowing them back makes sense eventually, but I can agree that block and freeze or delete pages is appropriate for first responders.
I would avoid being too hasty. If there is a strong suggestion that there is a crisis an immediate block could be a mistake, and could push a person over the edge. Keeping them busy may be a better option while exploring the situation to find out what is really going on. Punitive measures should only be considered after that has happened.
Ec
Right! I think that's the basic rule people are taught in dealing with this. I dont see the point really of a block, unless they're repeating it elsewhere--if its a prank, the damage has already been done. And the police are better situated to explain emphatically enough the disruption such stuff causes. Obviously the material should be removed as soon as the nature of it has been determined, but blocks are to prevent harm.
On 10/2/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 10/2/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/10/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, maybe I just need more coffee, but can someone explain to me why in god's name an indef block is the desired response to a suicide note on-wiki?
Well, once it's been confirmed as a hoax, an indef block is obviously appropriate. Before that, I'm not so sure. I guess it helps keep things under control by keeping everything they do on their talk page. I think it is also our standard response when someone dies - we block their account, since no-one should be using it any more, so anyone using it must be up to something.
I think the logic is that it's disruptive and indicates someone we probably don't want to continue to have associated with the project, for both their and our good.
There may be exceptions and times when allowing them back makes sense eventually, but I can agree that block and freeze or delete pages is appropriate for first responders.
I would avoid being too hasty. If there is a strong suggestion that there is a crisis an immediate block could be a mistake, and could push a person over the edge. Keeping them busy may be a better option while exploring the situation to find out what is really going on. Punitive measures should only be considered after that has happened.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/2/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Right! I think that's the basic rule people are taught in dealing with this. I dont see the point really of a block, unless they're repeating it elsewhere--if its a prank, the damage has already been done. And the police are better situated to explain emphatically enough the disruption such stuff causes. Obviously the material should be removed as soon as the nature of it has been determined, but blocks are to prevent harm.
On 10/2/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 10/2/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/10/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, maybe I just need more coffee, but can someone explain to me why in god's name an indef block is the desired response to a suicide note on-wiki?
Well, once it's been confirmed as a hoax, an indef block is obviously appropriate. Before that, I'm not so sure. I guess it helps keep things under control by keeping everything they do on their talk page. I think it is also our standard response when someone dies - we block their account, since no-one should be using it any more, so anyone using it must be up to something.
I think the logic is that it's disruptive and indicates someone we probably don't want to continue to have associated with the project, for both their and our good.
There may be exceptions and times when allowing them back makes sense eventually, but I can agree that block and freeze or delete pages is appropriate for first responders.
I would avoid being too hasty. If there is a strong suggestion that there is a crisis an immediate block could be a mistake, and could push a person over the edge. Keeping them busy may be a better option while exploring the situation to find out what is really going on. Punitive measures should only be considered after that has happened.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think that part of the "block and lock" approach was an attempt to *keep* anyone from continuing to interact with the person - if they are legitimately suicidal, a lot of things people might try could make the situation worse, and we've seen people jokingly harrassing apparently very stressed / suicidal people online before.
The only safe approach is "Get the real authorities in real life involved asap".
There may be some properly trained psychologists or psychiatrists, or suicide hotline staff / volunteers out there who might be able to safely help. But even they would generally make sure that the local authorities get there in real life ASAP, hopefully before anything can really go wrong, if it's about to.
There's no way we could know beforehand who those people were among us, though, and I would be very worried that a mass attempt to help out online would turn out badly in an actual suicidal wikipedian situation. How do we keep random nuts or helpful but clueless people from doing something damaging by communicating with the user? The only thing that accomplishes that is lock and block, and calling the authorities however you can find them.
On 10/2/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There's no way we could know beforehand who those people were among us, though, and I would be very worried that a mass attempt to help out online would turn out badly in an actual suicidal wikipedian situation. How do we keep random nuts or helpful but clueless people from doing something damaging by communicating with the user? The only thing that accomplishes that is lock and block, and calling the authorities however you can find them.
As an aside - As an analogy, for accidents and injuries, one of the key first aid and first responder (EMT, Paramedic, Firefighter, Police) training points is that bystanders are part of the problem in an emergency and accident scene.
It takes either rare inclination plus some seasoning experience, or a lot of experience, to get those people able to both react appropriately at an incident scene and manage it to avoid getting bystanders hurt, or having them further hurt someone already involved.
I have had "helpful" bystanders attempt to walk right into freeway traffic to lay out flares at an accident scene, stand around for minutes before communicating that there's a fire truck parked around the corner which might be able to come help, and stand in the middle of the road blocking traffic and the emergency vehicles trying to get to an accident scene.
The same sorts of issues come up with psychological emergencies. They're more subtle and harder for people to realize there's a problem. That's particularly much a problem online, where most people's sensitivity and emotional communications (both sending and reading) is dulled.
On 02/10/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, maybe I just need more coffee, but can someone explain to me why in god's name an indef block is the desired response to a suicide note on-wiki?
Block and lock is a thoroughly appropriate reaction, IMO. At times I feel we really need to start thinking more like the Top 10 website that we are. MySpace etc generally removes these things (pages, accounts) once they have been dealt with by the appropriate people, if I'm not mistaken?
Yes, I believe they do do those things in situations such as this. They can also completely remove your account for various reasons (and you never really get it back).
On 10/2/07, Riana wiki.riana@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/10/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, maybe I just need more coffee, but can someone explain to me why
in
god's name an indef block is the desired response to a suicide note on-wiki?
Block and lock is a thoroughly appropriate reaction, IMO. At times I feel we really need to start thinking more like the Top 10 website that we are. MySpace etc generally removes these things (pages, accounts) once they have been dealt with by the appropriate people, if I'm not mistaken? -- Riana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Riana wrote:
On 02/10/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, maybe I just need more coffee, but can someone explain to me why in god's name an indef block is the desired response to a suicide note on-wiki?
Block and lock is a thoroughly appropriate reaction, IMO. At times I feel we really need to start thinking more like the Top 10 website that we are. MySpace etc generally removes these things (pages, accounts) once they have been dealt with by the appropriate people, if I'm not mistaken?
Absolutely. Remember, blocks are for -prevention of disruption-, not some type of penalty. In this case, if the individual is genuinely suicidal, they need the intervention of trained professionals, not some well-meaning but untrained person who happens to be around when they throw around the suicide threats.
On 02/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Phoning a non-local police force (esp. a foreign one) isn't that easy. I've just spent 5 minutes looking, and couldn't find any way of contacting the london police in an emergency other than "dial 999".
Given the spectacular size of the Wikipedia project, we can be assured that people of all kinds will join us and this situation will inevitably happen again. As a consequence, we should have a mechanism in place to deal with it. However, as Durova writes,
These situations are beyond Wikipedia's scope, period. Hand them over to the professionals who have training and experience and access to social services.
Exactly. The absolute limit of our involvement should be to pass such a situation on to the relevant persons, which may often be a local police force. So the chain looks like this:
User -> Wikipedia -> [mechanism] -> local professionals.
This mailing list has demonstrated a wide geographical distribution and a low response time, faster even on occasion than the IRC channel (and more reliable in terms of reach). However, as a publically-archived resource[1], it may not be suitable for responding to difficult personal incidents. I'd like to suggest therefore that we set up a private "alerts" mailing list, with the following rules:
1) Membership by application to list moderators. 2) No rubbernecking. Those who subscribe are volunteering to actively monitor the list and, in reported cases, attempt to contact local authorities. 3) No discussion, /except/ in response to a reported incident, /specifically/ for the purpose of locating appropriate help. 4) No Samaritans. List users /must not/ attempt to personally help those reported in incidents.
There should be a private list of volunteers' locations and contact numbers.
I know this seems like a lot of work, but the list would be virtually invisible 99% of the time, but it will prove its worth in the 1% when it happens again (and it will; this is the second suicide note I've seen on Wikipedia in the last year).
Thoughts, flames?
[1] Blocking search engines from the official list archive has evidently not prevented someone from subscribing it to a third-party archiving service, so bear that in mind if you're discussing sensitive topics: http://www.nabble.com/English-Wikipedia-f14021.html
On 10/3/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 02/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Phoning a non-local police force (esp. a foreign one) isn't that easy. I've just spent 5 minutes looking, and couldn't find any way of contacting the london police in an emergency other than "dial 999".
Given the spectacular size of the Wikipedia project, we can be assured that people of all kinds will join us and this situation will inevitably happen again. As a consequence, we should have a mechanism in place to deal with it. However, as Durova writes,
These situations are beyond Wikipedia's scope, period. Hand them over to the professionals who have training and experience and access to social services.
Exactly. The absolute limit of our involvement should be to pass such a situation on to the relevant persons, which may often be a local police force. So the chain looks like this:
User -> Wikipedia -> [mechanism] -> local professionals.
This mailing list has demonstrated a wide geographical distribution and a low response time, faster even on occasion than the IRC channel (and more reliable in terms of reach). However, as a publically-archived resource[1], it may not be suitable for responding to difficult personal incidents. I'd like to suggest therefore that we set up a private "alerts" mailing list, with the following rules:
- Membership by application to list moderators.
- No rubbernecking. Those who subscribe are volunteering to actively
monitor the list and, in reported cases, attempt to contact local authorities. 3) No discussion, /except/ in response to a reported incident, /specifically/ for the purpose of locating appropriate help. 4) No Samaritans. List users /must not/ attempt to personally help those reported in incidents.
There should be a private list of volunteers' locations and contact numbers.
I know this seems like a lot of work, but the list would be virtually invisible 99% of the time, but it will prove its worth in the 1% when it happens again (and it will; this is the second suicide note I've seen on Wikipedia in the last year).
Thoughts, flames?
[1] Blocking search engines from the official list archive has evidently not prevented someone from subscribing it to a third-party archiving service, so bear that in mind if you're discussing sensitive topics: http://www.nabble.com/English-Wikipedia-f14021.html
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
There had been some attempts to make a policy document on "what to do" in response to apparently suicidal Wikipedians on-wiki, which failed to gain consensus for various reasons. After a brief discussion on another mailing list this week, I went and posted an essay describing how we've responded to prior incidents and why. This will hopefully serve to some extent as a guide for future incidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_Suicidal_Users
..also linked as [[WP:SUICIDE]], which previously went to one of the failed policy proposals.
Please let me know if I have misstated prior response standards in any significant way.
Thanks.
On 10/2/07, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 ... reports to be sent via e-mail, so the next best thing was to hit this list, which, based on the near-constant drama feeds (As the Wiki turns, the Young and the Adminless, General Arbcom, etc. 8- ) ) demonstrates that it's monitored rather well. ....
Anyone who makes up a skit for next year's Wikimania called "As the Wiki turns," "The Young and the Adminless," or "General Arbcom" will be my personal hero.
-- phoebe
On 04/10/2007, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/2/07, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
... reports to be sent via e-mail, so the next best thing was to hit this list, which, based on the near-constant drama feeds (As the Wiki turns, the Young and the Adminless, General Arbcom, etc. 8- ) ) demonstrates that it's monitored rather well. ....
Anyone who makes up a skit for next year's Wikimania called "As the Wiki turns," "The Young and the Adminless," or "General Arbcom" will be my personal hero.
It's fairly obviously time to get started on it right now.
(There's even a series of articles on Uncyclopedia it'd fit right into.)
- d.