Obvious place to start is the essay Wikipedia is not therapy
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =832534463
As you can see, it rather equivocates on the issues that surround mental illness and Wikipedia. It arguably isn't about mental illness at all, unless one counts the very real issue of Wikipedia addiction as one.
But the takeaway lessons here are that it is just an essay - this signifies the Wikipedians have not given this issue much thought, so little they cannot even be bothered to create a guideline, let alone a hard and fast policy. Contrast this with the volumes of official text dedicated to, for example, users with a conflict of interest.
So, in the absence of guidance, to understand how Wikiepdia deals with mentally ill users, we can only really look at individual cases.
User:Prüm
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prüm&oldid=843547928
As can be seen, this user recently had some kind of break with reality, some kind of disturbing episode, that was apparently triggered or exacerbated by their involvement with Wikipedia. It manifested in him pretending to be disruptive users from Wikipedia's past.
In case they hide it, here's a small selection of what he was saying...
As can also be seen, other than vague mentions of emailing ArbCom, which doesn't seem to have even happened, none of this clear evidence of this user having a serious mental disorder, really enters into the equation as far as deciding whether or not they should have been blocked, or has happened, should be unblocked. The only concern seems to have been the Administration's literal concern for the disruptive effect of the impersonation, and then bizarrely, establishing if the user actually wasn't who he claimed to be.I was just freaking out during the course of the day. Regards, --Prüm (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I was just undergoing the most horrible experience of my whole life so far. I don't wish to go into any more detail, but that's why I felt I couldn't go on anymore. I actually can't remember it well now. In other words: I was mentally very unstable when I wrote this, but can feel myself getting better now. I referenced Grawp because that was the one thing that came to my mind then. It's been a long time since he terrorized Wikipedia, but I did feel there must be a connection to the state of mind I was trying to describe above. Thanks for your asking. --Prüm (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I can not really pin down what has led me to do it, but it may be a combination of perceived stress from outside influences, lack of sleep and generally not paying enough attention to my inner voice anymore. I hope there is a way I can undo the damage done. --Prüm (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I was in a state of acute mental anguish, which has subsided now. Invoking Grawp was a last ditch attempt to prevent any further damage from occuring through disruptive editing with my account, which I believe happened because I was feeling myself lose my grip over reality. You may look into my editing history, which wasn't suspicious until the last week or so. I wish to contribute to improving myself and others again through editing enwiki the way I did before, and therefore politely ask to be unblocked. I had my main account on dewiki unblocked already and was never blocked on meta, having withdrawn the block request there in time. Prüm (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I hope I will get to enjoy editing enwiki again. There are so many go- and nogo-rules that make life rather difficult here. I'll "see ya 'round", I guess. Thanks again for the block, and the unblock--Prüm (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe this user really is fine now, maybe he is in control of his own mind. Then again, maybe he is not. It seems obvious to me that the only sensible move here, for the benefit of the user and Wikiepdia, was to keep them blocked, and courtesy blank all information pertaining to it.
Only if they then present private evidence to the WMF that the have seen a medical professional who has signed off on the notion that them interacting with Wikipedia is a healthy activity for them, should they be unblocked.
User:Coffee
Too much has happened with this much documented user, who was a Wikipedia Administrator, to be repeated here. The executive summary is essentially that he had serious real world problems, that he repeatedly said and did things on Wikipedia that made it clear he was having difficulties coping, as he also tried to use Wikipedia as a coping strategy. Most if not all of the times he entered crisis mode on Wikipedia, it was either brought on or coincided with stressful situations he found himself in due to activities he performed as an Administrator, his judgement clearly clouded by his illness.
Rather than protect him from himself, the Wikipedians largely ignored what was infront of their faces, and carried on treating this user as if he was perfectly capable of dealing with the situations they were finding themselves in. As such, we were treated to the horrific sight of this guy becoming a pawn in certain people's sick wikipolitical games. Ultimately, it was left to the user himself to self-block, by which time the damage done was huge, both to himself and Wikipedia.
User:Malik Shabbazz
This guy has what the Wikipedians euphemistic like to refer to as a temper. As anyone can see, this isn't his issue at all. This guy has a deeply troubled mindset, resulting from a very odd personal backstory, and it is what clearly drives his interest in Wikipedia, which is solely as an activist. As such, he typically believes he is right and everyone who opposes him is wrong. The combination of this drive and his mental state, means an undercurrent of aggression and threatening behaviour is never far from what he does on the website.
On at least two occasions that I know of, he has gone beyond the sort of aggression that is hardly unknown on a website known for its tolerance of hostility, and completely flipped his lid. And tellingly, when he does this, he cannot be talked down or around, he can only be left alone in his rage, lest he double and even triple down. Despite this, the Wikipedians have been incredibly reluctant to call this what it is - an undiagnosed mood or impulse control disorder. Something other editors, the ones without such issues, deserve to be protected from.
Unbelievably, when his Administrator privelages were removed as a matter of emergency during one such incident, the completely unqualified members of ArbCom later declared his issues were no longer present, and he was free to regain his tools at any time, no questions asked. Showing that he probably knows himself better than they do, he has so far declined that offer. He has since done things which, you would hope at least, would mean he would not be allowed to become an Administrator again if it were up to the wider community. Then again, these are the very same people who have persistently ignored his episodes, downplaying it as merely a temper.
Rather amusingly, if you can really find humour in how the Wikipedians seem to love to ignore evidence of mental illness, Malik has an interesting history surrounding his own Wikipedia identity, in the sense of accounts. You could go so far as to call it a disorder, or at the very least an inability to realise that how they see their own actions, is not necessarily how others will see it.
Firstly, there't the fact he routinely edits from two accounts, Malik Shabbaz and MShabbaz, often both on the same day, even in the same conversations. Since this isn't remotely normal, it causes untold problems and confusion, but evidently Malik believes it is for everyone else to work around his apparent need to do this. Secondly, he has in the past edited as an IP, multiple IPs in fact, and apparently he made the same assumption that it was for other people to figure out it was him.
In both cases, the Wikipedians let this guy get away with roundly abusing anyone and everyone who presented legitimate, policy based complaints about these practices. His chosen form of abuse was, rather ironically, accusing people of being incapable of reading the very policies that made it clear what he was saying and doing was utterly wrong. He wasn't properly declaring his alternate accounts, and he did use IPs to disruptively sock.
It exceedingly common for Malik to accuse his opponents of being thick or stupid, and he routinely reacts to clearly presented evidence he has done wrong by simply ignoring it. Even on Wikipedia, being this much of an asshole to both your opponents and everybody else in the room isn't really common, certainly not among the regulars. In his case, when looked at his other issues, it arguably isn't just normal everyday assholery, but some kind of coping strategy. It is certainly another sign he has a mental illness which is severely hampering his ability to work acceptably with others.
At present, with the Wikipedians practicing such a devil may care attitude to serious problems like this, all we can essentially do is watch and wait for the next episode.
TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC) 
