Wikipedia talk:Responding to threats of harm

See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 400 days may be automatically archived by .

Note from WMF Trust and Safety

As of June 2023, it has come to our attention that some messages sent to emergency@ wound up in our spam folder. This seems to be a backend issue with our email provider and we are currently reviewing the problem. If you do not receive a response to your message within 1 hour, please send a note to cawikimedia.org. Thank you. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JKoerner (WMF): Hello, have the technical issues on emergency@ been resolved? Do we still need to forward emails to ca@ if we don't hear back within 1 hour? Thanks. SCP-2000 04:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SCP-2000 The answer will be yes, regardless. If the system is working then you will get a response within one hour, if it isn't then they will want to know that. Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, SCP-2000! I think Thryduulf has some solid advice in case this situation persists. Let me check in on this issue to see if it's been resolved. I'll let you know once I know more. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, should we permanently change the instructions to include this "1-hour" rule? It's not confidence-inspiring. E Eng 06:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It already says This address is monitored around the clock. Staff will typically acknowledge your email immediately but something like "however, very occasionally, technical issues happen - if you have not heard back with in one hour forward your email to ca@..." would I think minimise the confidence issues. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JKoerner (WMF), is this still a problem? -- asilvering (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prudence: involve authorities

I believe that the recommendations should include involving authorities when feasible. In the few cases where the poster intends to follow through, inaction would be dangerous.

From a legal perspective a threat to kill or otherwise injure somebody, with rare exceptions, is assault, a criminal act and a serious matter, so there is no reason to wait until you are actually attacked before reporting it. Let the police sort out his intentions, and play safe.

The above applies to actual threats, not maledictions. Statements like "May you be struck by lightning" may violate WP:CIVIL, but they should not be treated as threats. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not our job as volunteers. Trust and Safety is paid to do that, and an email to emergency

wikimedia.org will be seen within minutes. They are the ones that know how and what to do, and have systems in place to deal with involving the authorities. We should not encourage our volunteers to get in the middle of that system and potentially cause confusion. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't realize that their response was that quick. FWIW, I was addressing prudence rather than obligation; if the threat is carried out, it is the perpetrator who is at fault, even if the victim failed to report it. I agree that if there is a rapid and effective procedure for getting the details to the relevant authorities then a direct report is unnecessary. It might be helpful to note the timeframe in which T&S handles reports and that they will contact the relevant authorities when appropriate -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a good idea, Chatul. Incidentally, this system was created because (long, long ago) it was difficult to line up an editor in the right country and speaking the right language to communicate with law enforcement in a way that would be taken seriously. We knew it was important, but these kinds of contacts are best made by someone with an official role that can be verified by the agency, and ways to reach out to law enforcement in other jurisdictions is pretty important, too. Trust & Safety has developed a remarkably effective system over the ensuing years, far better than anything that volunteers could develop and maintain. Risker (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it say "contact another admin"?

In these situations, I've always just contacted the emergency email. But I notice that there's a sentence in this page that reads Even if you are an administrator, notify other administrators. Why? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A combination of CYA and a second opinion. Primefac (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could understand a second opinion in cases where you're maybe unsure but I really don't see the point in doing it every time (and this could actually be dangerous if you're doing this instead of contacting the emergency email). As I said, contacting the emergency email has always worked for me. It seems wrong to draw more attention to something sensitive like that without a good reason. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if all admins would know how to respond in such a situation and I certainly don't vote for admins on that basis that they’re emergency responders or that responsible. Contacting emergency seems responsible and I hope more admins know to do that. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always defaulted to go to the emergency email if I see a threat of harm. As admins, we just don't have that ability to handle those situations the way the T&S can. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]