Wikipedia talk:Responding to threats of harm

For similar proposals in the past, see: Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals, Wikipedia:Helping suicidal individuals, and Wikipedia:Threats of violence.

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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

Hi @Asilvering, I'm terribly sorry I missed this ping and am over a month late! Yes, this is an ongoing issue. Trust and Safety does monitor the emergency@ email around the clock. Thankfully, the occurrence of emails going into spam is not frequent. Trust and Safety staff have been iterating on fixes to the issue and are now frequently reviewing spam to limit this from happening. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! -- asilvering (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T338032

Sadly, email to emergency@ sometimes seems to fall into a black hole. RoySmith (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've never had that issue, but the page does say This address is monitored around the clock. Staff will typically acknowledge your email immediately. Because of recent (2023) technical issues: if you don't hear back within one hour, forward your email to ca.wikimedia.org. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The June 2024 incident is concerning if sending to both emails addresses failed to get a response. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Definitely. Hey MMiller (WMF), do you know of a way to escalate this so it doesn't get lost in the phab queue? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Clovermoss -- thanks for the ping. I can find a good person to ask about this June incident. That's the only incident we're talking about, right? It's not that admins have noticed a pattern lately of unanswered emails? MMiller (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware that's the only one but I'll keep you updated if I hear of any others. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't say to do it instead of contacting the emergency email. You'd tell another administrator (step 3) after emailing (step 2). You shouldn't be shouting it from the rooftops, but in basically any emergency situation, wikipedia or not, it's best to get another person aware of the problem as soon as it's physically safe to do so. -- asilvering (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay but why? I really don't see the point here. It's not like they can do anything else you can't already do as an admin (revdel pending oversight). People responding to the emergency email are the ones actually responding to the situation. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be based on an earlier version when looking at the archive. According to the revision in March 2012: Any person who observes potentially suicidal or violent behavior (frequently made in discussion or announcements on talk or user pages) should notify Wikipedia administrators quickly. [...] Administrators are advised to make such announcements even if they discover such behavior on their own. Other administrators may be able to help more effectively, and making a wider announcement is key to mobilizing such effort. Once noticeboard threads have been responded to by appropriate parties, consider blanking them, possibly leaving a link to the last version of the thread for reference as needed. (Emphasis added)

Over time, this got wilted away. In February 2017, Risker madevmultiple edits which removed a link to Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention and removed the message to post to noticeboards with an emphasis to not post to noticeboards. This left in the Administrator action section which stated the following: Threats of violence against others should be met with blocking, generally including user talk pages. Threats or claims should be removed from any relevant pages and are frequently deleted from page history. Use of revision deletion may be appropriate. Threats of suicide or self-harm require discretion on the questions of blocking or removal of posts. This stayed for the most part until Mz7's overhaul the following February which turned the section into "Advice for administrators" with some mild adjustments about revdel. This overhaul did say to Also request oversight, which lasted until August 2020 when EEng removed and reworded it to help simply things for regular editors while making it optional. I would say this is the last time it was mandatory to contact an administrator for a reason as everything was now optional and up to the discretion of the contacted admin(s), including requesting oversight. (Amended on 21:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC))

Perhaps a rewording is needed to clarify the modern why. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Responding to the mention above. I think maybe the line about contacting other admins could probably be modified to something like Administrators may contact other administrators using the same steps as above. There are a lot of reasons why admins may not be in a position to take action on such an issue, including being in a situation where it would not be appropriate for them to act, or just plain being uncomfortable with carrying out some of the actions. On the other hand....I think we need to add back in to email Oversight, because except in rare situations, it is far more likely to get a prompt response than an email to a random administrator would. If we're going to tell people to email someone other than emergency@, it should be specific that the next email should go to oversight-en, rather than just saying "send an email" (to whom? what if they don't answer? how do I know they read it?....etc.) Risker (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree; swap "admin" with "OS" for the third point. Primefac (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Three things:

  • Wait a second. I didn't remove the advice to request oversight -- I just moved it from the instructions for regular editors to the instructions for admins -- look again at the diff [1]. And I think that's correct place for it, for the reason given in the edit summary.
  • I've never understood the advice that admins should notify other admins. Who? Which? How many? For what purpose? If we want to say, "Contact other admins if for some reason you can't do the steps above", that might make sense. But then that should go down in the "advice for admins" section.

  EEng 11:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  I apologize for misstating what happened, but from my perspective the text went from mandating it with the words "Also request" to it becoming optional with the words "Request oversight if" when it was moved. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Even as a non-admin, I'd just email the emergency email when I came across suicide threats. I think I'd also email oversight. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Clovermoss, Thank you for expressing your concern with the process and we in Trust and Safety understand. As with the sentiment about contacting administrators, that is certainly up to the administrator’s judgment and comfort level. Trust and Safety is able to support the community members in addressing concerning and delicate situations around the wiki-sphere. The goal is to proceed with the most caution in order to support the person in need as efficiently and effectively as possible.

  Trust and Safety does monitor the emergency@ email around the clock. While the issue of some emails going into spam is well established and documented, the occurrence is not frequent. Trust and Safety staff have been iterating on fixes to the issue and are now frequently reviewing spam to limit this from happening.

  Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2024

Add the following hatnote:

"WP:TOV" redirects here. For types of vandalism on Wikipedia, see WP:VANDTYPES.

which appears like this in wikicode:

{{Redirect|WP:TOV|types of vandalism on Wikipedia|WP:VANDTYPES}}

67.209.128.169 (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• What does this have to do with this page? EEng 02:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Heavy elaboration: I mean, i got sent here by WP:TOV, which i initially thought leads to Wikipedia:Types of vandalism. However, noticing that [on this page] there is no such intersection hatnote for those who wanted to use WP:TOV as "types of vandalism" instead of "threats of violence", i feel very intimidated as someone who relies mostly on wikishortcuts. 67.209.128.169 (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

    I'm bringing this to RFD. See discussion. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:TOV" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:TOV has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 14 § Wikipedia:TOV until a consensus is reached. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding WP:!!!

Hi all,

I just wanted to ask if we could feature WP:!!! with the other shortcuts. It's pretty useful, and easy to remember. I just don't want to anger anyone or annoy anyone! This page is so useful for me and so many other people too.

Warm regards,

Avishai

@Avishai11

Avishai11 (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• That seems a bit of an EGG; we have 5 shortcuts listed, which is already two more than typical. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• I don't see any value in this. There are more than enough shortcuts, and in fact I'd be more inclined to prune the existing list. Risker (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• This page is so useful for me – How many threats of harm do you run into? EEng 21:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)