 | 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. |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 400 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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 ca
wikimedia.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
-20
00 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.
E
Eng 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)
- It already says
- 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)
- 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)
- @
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)
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)
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 400 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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
-20
00 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.
E
Eng 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)
- It already says
- 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)
- 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)
- @
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)
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)