Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

An exclusion for article space?

There really needs to be some kind of exclusion for article space. Suppose that there is a child actor who edits Wikipedia. The way this proposal is currently phrased, if we become aware of this (eg, the kid says in an interview that he edits Wikipedia), we would need to remove their personally identifiable informaiton from article space - an obviously silly consequence. BigDT 00:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that, and came to the opinion that it wasn't an issue, since in order for it to fall under this policy, the child's user name would have to be revealed in article space, which would also be a bit silly. But such a debate wouldn't fall under the rubric of protecting children's privacy, that's very true. JonathanPenton 00:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that if a famous child were editing Wikipedia, they would do it under a user name that could not be traced back to them, and they wouldn't tell an interviewer what their name was. The same would go for any child, but especially someone whose name is publicly connected with an under-age person. 6SJ7 00:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That situation exists right now, and some of us are wondering what can be done about it. A 13-year-old actor (at least, he says he's an actor, and he does have a listing on IMDB) has an autobiographical article that includes the name of his school and the name of his 6-year-old sister. The information in the article, along with his IP as a user, enables anyone to find the family's phone number and address quickly.

This boy also edits Wikipedia, using an IP address. Many of his edits are vandalism. He came to my attention when he inserted his name and his sister's name into the cast list in the article on a current film. These children did not appear in that film. He's currently blocked as a user – the latest of several blocks. The article on him was approved for deletion (bio of an insufficiently notable living person), but it hasn't been removed. I believe it should be removed immediately, and perhaps his parents should be told that his online activity is compromising the family's privacy. Having been at Wikipedia only a month, I don't know all the policies and procedures. Anyone who knows what to do, please post at my talk page. I can point you to the page where this matter is being discussed. Cognita 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

An admin has removed the personal information in the boy's article now, so that's taken care of. The problem that existed illustrates something that hasn't been thoroughly addressed in this discussion: what should happen when a young user endangers another child's privacy? Cognita 09:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The personal information should be removed with Oversight and then the contributor should be told why it is wrong and that they'll be indefinitely blocked if they do it again. Harsh but fair. --WikiSlasher 08:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the reason that a user disclosing someone else's information hasn't been discussed here is because it's not so controversial to invoke oversight and ban for it. Anything that's not verifiable should be removed so if it isn't public knowledge, that warrants removal regardless of the real or perceived danger of the information. Not-so-famous yet arguably notable persons whose personal details are not public are a large part of the motivation behind WP:BLP which addresses some of these issues. All in all, the policy required to correct the situation exists and is far more widely accepted than this proposal, so the issue is not really related to this proposal. Not that we can't discuss it as it relates to this proposal, but that's why this doesn't apply to someone adding someone else's personal information. BigNate37_(T) 10:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

I like the alternative proposal a lot. It gets the point across without resorting to moral panic and without demeaning minors by insisting they are all helpless and naive. Ironically, senior citizens are more often victimized by breaches of their privacy than children. Why should we only be worried about children? Kaldari 06:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Crum375 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be any more than an essay, does it? It's much better than "We're going to tell you what you may or may not do, and if you don't listen, we're going to block you, but it's for your safety!", of course. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as I noted a long time ago elsewhere here, all we need is a general cautionary note to users about safe surfing and WP use habits. It should apply to all users - a computer-phobic grandma could be even more gullible (and vulnerable) than a smarty-pants 13 year old. Crum375 23:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't need to be anything, but actually it might help to make it a guideline in this case. I see little reason why not to - all it needs is to be actionable and consensual. It is obviouisly actionable since it tells people what not to do; it appears consensual to me because I haven't seen anyone disagreeing with that. Of course, some people state it is insufficient and that more and more stringent rules are needed. Maybe they are, but this can at least be a starting point. (Radiant) 11:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe the starting point can be what the Arbitration Committee said it should be. (See below.) 6SJ7 11:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I favor the alternative proposal, for all the reasons Kaldari cited. -Toptomcat 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it

I like this policy. It will definitely protect my children while they are playing around with Wikipedia. --Wiki Eto Klevo 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I think it's bad. We're not a babysitting service. If you feel your children are not safe enough, that's fine, but it's your responsibility to keep them safe. We shouldn't have to "protect" children that do not need to be protected, taking away their right to post certain things, so that some parents don't have to take the responsibility of seeing what their child does on the Internet. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right. Because Wikipedia is unique among entities on this earth:it simply exists; it is not a moral player in the world, and indeed transcends the moral concerns of more mundane entities. Furthermore, editors when editing Wikipedia exit the world of morality and enter a plane where issues of good and bad, of help and harm, simply cease to exist. See also WP:BG&E (which was formally "rejected", but nevertheless is a guiding principle of the 'pedia). Hope this helps. Herostratus 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think WP:BG&E was rejected because it is unnecessary and sounds like a trollish hoax anyway. The way I see it, WP's mission and mandate is to spread well sourced notable knowledge and present it in a neutral way. Most of us here believe that that mission alone is a moral common denominator. Going beyond this common mission starts down a slippery slope to imposing one's own brand of morality on others. Crum375 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Some of the issues raised in this proposal have been determined in the recently-completed arbitration proceeding, though I am not exactly sure how they fit into the policy or what the next step is. However, the ArbComm did say, in effect, that there is a next step for this proposal and they recognized certain principles and remedies that overlap with some of the ideas on this page. The impact of the decision will require further investigation and discussion. 6SJ7 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the Arb decision, especially the 'remedies', may be well intentioned but is very unclear. It says "Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information." It does not define 'children' (is your 25 year old grandchild a 'child'?), does not define 'appropriate cases' and does not identify the existing policies that admins should be abiding by (Arbcom cannot create new ones from scratch to my knowledge). I suspect we've not heard the last of this. Crum375 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really expect ArbCom to come up with anything, and I wasn't surprised. The findings are all so subjective that they can not concievably be used to do anything without people saying "But it doesn't say that, it says something else!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So that those who have not followed the arbitration can have a clear picture of what the ArbComm did, I have reformatted the items in the decision into a slightly more compact form, which appears below. I have omitted votes and have merged each item's heading into the item itself. I have not changed any of the text:

• Principles

1) Wikipedia is not a soap opera: Reasonable measures which forestall the drama associated with interactions between naive children, predatory pedophiles, and sting operations by law enforcement are appropriate.

2) Ban for disruption: Users who seriously disrupt Wikipedia may be banned. In the context of this case, users who self-identify as children, project a sexually tinged persona, and disclose personal information such as links to sites devoted to social interaction are engaging in disruptive behavior and may be banned.

3) Consequences of absence of policy: If there is no specific policy which addresses a problem, it is handled on a case by case basis.

4) Editing by children: Users, including children, are permitted to edit anonymously without submitting identifying information.

5) Reasonable efforts to protect privacy of children: Reasonable efforts to discourage children from disclosing identifying personal information are appropriate.

• Findings of fact

1) Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy: Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy is an attempt to adopt the principles of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act to the particular circumstances of Wikipedia.

2) Current practice: When a user self-identifies as a child, especially if they provide personal information, the matter is frequently a subject of discussion among administrators, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy/Evidence#Discussion_at_the_noticeboard. Sometimes the user is immature and ends up being blocked for disruption. If they are not disruptive, personal information may be removed and the user counseled.

3) Failure to achieve consensus: Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy and alternative policies addressing the same matters have failed to achieve consensus.

4) Self-identified children: Self-identified children may be children, adult predators, trolls, adult privacy-watchers testing our policies, or law enforcement personnel.

• Proposed remedies

1) Continued work needed: The community is encouraged to continue working to achieve an acceptable formulation of Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy, or an alternative, which addresses problems presented by disruptive users, while avoiding the creation of a hostile atmosphere for children who are editing in good faith.

2) Ban for disruption: Users who disrupt Wikipedia by posing as children, projecting a provocative persona, and disclosing personal information may be banned on a case by case basis.

3) Counseling: Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.

I will have some more comments on this tomorrow, but I think this decision gives the community something to work with. In response to the observation that some of the ArbComm's statements are somewhat vague and use undefined terms, please note that the committee also recognized that more work needs to be done. In other words, I think they are expecting us to try to agree on the details. One thing that does seem pretty clear is that the age of 13 is not necessarily the cutoff point. Personally the only other principled cutoff age that I can think of is 18, which is the age of majority in the United States (or most of it?) I do not know what it is in other parts of the English-speaking world. In any event, I think we need to discuss how to proceed in light of the ArbComm decision, and not necessarily how the ArbComm might have responded differently than they did. 6SJ7 05:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• The most elementary part of the ArbCom decision is the statement that both this page and alternative pages have failed to reach consensus. Since an issue with them is that they're perceived as too stern, making them more stern by increasing the age limit is unlikely to help. I think our best bet would be to start a new tack: write down some statements that we all agree on (e.g. the ArbCom's statements) and discuss what should be added to that. (Radiant) 11:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The lack of consensus is far from the "most elementary part" of the decision. The ArbComm recognized that there is an issue here (though perhaps a narrower issue than some of the proponents of this policy believed), that practices exist to deal with at least part of that issue, and that those practices are being employed by at least some administrators. It seems to me that the committee felt that there already is a "consensus" in this regard, within the general consensus that "disruption" is an issue that needs to be dealt with and that admins are empowered to deal with it. What lacks consensus are some of the details, and as a result there is inevitably going to be a lot of variation in enforcement. I do agree with your last sentence, and I have already provided (above) the ArbComm's statements, so we can build on them. 6SJ7 12:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Where to go from here?

I was lurking here for a while, and I've been actively following the RFArb that was filed in this case, and I guess I'm going to toss my two cents in. The Arbcom seemed to be saying that provocation is 'bannable' without this policy, and children editing in good faith, which we must assume, should be counciled. I don't think I'm out of line in saying that part is not greatly controversial. The tricky parts that has not achieved any real consensus I think could be summarized as, in order of limitation, A: should children be allowed to edit wikipedia? If so, should they be allowed to post 'identifiable information' C: If they may not and do, what measures should be taken? I don't think anyone here wants to see children victimized, but the questions remain as to the degree of protection nessesary without becoming overly discouraging. I'm 21 myself, and I remember being greatly discouraged when many websites, especially ones that I felt I could have made cogent contributions to, blocked me from accessing them or contributing merely because I was not 18, on the other hand, I don't dissagree that some protections are nessesary and good. In the interest of providing us a talking point from here, and as a way of moving from the arbcom's disscussion to build a consensus on further action and policy, I'm going to offer up my proposal:

• Whereas: Protecting the privacy and safety of children online is a laudable goal and public concern.
• Whereas: Children with unlimited access to internet communication may be placed in a postition to be victimized or their privacy compromised.
• Whereas: User pages, unlike private messages on bulitin boards or e-mail accounts are public to all users of wikipedia.
• whereas: Wikipedia cannot require concrete proof of age for account activation.
• be it resolved that any user self-identifying as a child should be prohibited from posting contact information of a reasonably personal nature (to be determined by the prevailing community consensus and judgement of administrators). Be it further resolved that automatic categorization of users under the age of 18 into age-specific categories be disabled and a recommendation be made that searching under this criteria be simularly blocked.

In my opinion, that's all we can do, talk to children that self-identify and disable any features that might be used by predators. I don't see wikipedia as nearly as big a risk of this behavior as other sites, because user messages cannot be private and are freely editable (for instance, by a moderator removing material that is too personal or sexually harassing). In addition, strictly enforcing WP:Not a social netowrking site removes much of that potential as well.

But in the end for all we try to do, a child's safety online is ultimately in their, and their parent's, hands; a child truely determined to put themselves at risk will do so, regardless of our best intention. The best we can do is make it more difficult for our search functions and categorization to be used to single out victims and remove any dangerous material we see. In all honesty I think the risk of this is probably overstated given the public nature and high transparency of the Wiki framework, with long revision histories and well-established processes for handling harassment, as well as a lack of private chat capacity. Myspace, chat rooms, instant messaging, all pose much higher risks, while I think that a procedure for protection is a pro-active step to prevent risk and danger, it must be carefully tempered to avoid overreaction that harms rather than helps our users or encourages children to misreport their age for fear of limitations. Children are not thralls of their parents, they are also not devoid of information, to block them outright would be throwing out a lot of babies (no pun intended) with the bathwater, and given the open structure of wikipedia full community control and minimal restrictions represent our best control, pedophiles are not going to post in a public and logged format, and if private information is blanked, then they have no other way of contacting. Once we've done all we can it's up to the child (if of age) and their parents, we cannot be expected to protect everyone from everything out there, we can only make it harder and hope that common sense prevails and parents monitor their children's access. I am sympathetic to the position that wikipedia should not pander to all people and 'act as a babysitter' as one user put it, but I see no reason why restricted search criterion and user page review by concerned wikizens is babysitting or pandering. Wintermut3 01:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I could get behind a guideline like that, provided it does not venture down the slippery slope of instruction creep. Despite prior denouncements of the make-this-a-guideline idea, I maintain that this does not need to be a policy to work and indeed should not make the leap to policy any time soon, based on the underlying moral conflict. I especially appreciate the abscence of specific conditions which warrant intervention, because every case is different and this does not happen enough (if at all) for there to be precedent as to what level of information is safe for what age of person. I'd still rather see this die and the status quo prevail, but as a compromise Wintermut3's approach would make an excellent guideline. BigNate37_(T) 01:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Instruction creep was a worry of mine as well, but I think that could be avoided by enlisting worried wikizens and issuing a guideline for administrators as to what to look for in abuse patterns, ect. rather than ban criteria and such, though I won't rule out that might be needed in extreme cases. In addition, I might possibly support making "compromising personal information" a speedy-delete criteria for user pages, especially for minor users. I'm just trying to incorporate the viewpoints of both sides, which I can agree are both equally valid in principle.Wintermut3 02:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a few problems with your proposal: 1. It doesn't define child (under 18? unemancipated minor? pre-pubescent? still lives with their parents?) 2. "Prohibit" is a very strong word which doesn't allow much wiggle room. 3. Why are we only worried about children's privacy, what about everyone else's privacy? Kaldari 07:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You're coming in very late to this proposal, as much of this has been discussed at length. I'll try to rehash, but this is from my point of view:

1. A strict number for child age cutoff has three problems: the appropriateness of one age over another is something specific to individual cultures and societies, it is instruction creep, and knowing a user's age is tricky at best. It is best in this case to avoid bureaucratic specifications and leave the details to common sense (which has largely been the case to date, in absence of a policy or guideline of this sort).
2. Prohibiting self-identified children from disclosing personal contact information is the heart of this proposal, and "suggesting strongly children not disclose personal contact information" isn't something that needs a guideline—that's already happening, and then some. Of course, you're free to disagree with the proposal on that note but this has always been the centre of this proposal.
3. Lastly, this 'child-protecting' proposal is struggling to even stay alive, nevermind gain consensus—I daresay that anything more ambitious like protecting all users in this manner should be split off into a seperate proposal.

On a closing note, if you wish to discuss one or more of these points at length, please consider making a level-three subsection for the point(s). I may do the same if things get complicated, since we're discussing three things at once and I have a feeling someone might reply in the middle of my comments. BigNate37_(T) 14:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the current proposal is a good guideline, although much of what it says is already being done (discouraging users from posting personal info.) I prefer it to the proposal before ArbCom's decision, as in that form it felt like instruction creep.--Grand Slam 7 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"whereas: Wikipedia cannot require concrete proof of age for account activation" Cannot? How about will not? Wikipedia can require concrete proof of name, address, age and citizenship, among others. Wikipedia can require concrete proof of waistline size if the Foundation directors so chose. Wikipedia can, as other sites may, persue fraud charges against anyone who uses false information to access the Foundation's servers. Wikipedia has been willfully and intentionally shaped by a deliberate few to advance a narrow set of social ideals that overly values the privacy of contributors but places no value at all on privacy of subjects described in its database.

Wikipdia could join the rest of the adult world and acknowledge that accountability requires information about sources as well as about subjects, but unfortunately a large number of immature adults have decided to make Wikipedia an experiment -- a failed experiment -- in anarchy, held together by assumptions about the impossibility of other approaches and by by strong-arm capricious secret administrators. This attempt at policy -- uniniformed by anyone with any related policy-making experience -- is yet another move to codify the arbitrary powers of secret administrators. OF course, when the price of entry is an assertion that Wikipedia works and Wikipedia's strange ideals are the best for the world, it is unlikely that any will be allowed to gain sufficient status in this "community" to be recognized when they describe such policy proposals as irrational, unworkable and evidentiary of a collective narcicism among those in control here. Hal Lamont 21:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Would this policy be a good idea ... or not any use?

Personal information will remain in the page history even if reverted, unless removed by an administrator. And how to tell that admin, or an admin, about it, without putting that user's name on the WP:ANI? Emailing them would work, but who's going to email an admin just because some 12-year-old's posted their personal info on their userpage? Not me, for a start. And how are we going to find all the users in question? Really.... Yuser31415 03:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:Oversight does get invoked. Information may be viewable for a few minutes, or a few hours, but it gets removed "soon." A lot of info gets reverted or listed at WP:AN/I until someone comes along who knows how to deal with it. Hang around WP:AN/I a bit and you'll see that it works, albiet not great. The problems you discuss are not specific to this proposal and are not preventing personal information posted by others from being removed, this proposal aims to stretch this protection to young people who volunteer the info themselves. BigNate37_(T) 04:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To my this isn't an issue of being able to fix every single incident, it's about applying reasonable caution. I think that providing a mechanism to deal with a potential issue and making the site unfriendly to searching targeting a specific age demographic is "reasonable precaution." There's no need to go overboard either...Wintermut3 04:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But what you see as reasonable caution is quite obviously viewed by others as over the top. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't get into an argument here. That besides, somehow the user has to be told _why_ his info was removed. How do you propose doing this? Cheers, Yuser31415 05:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The base of my proposal is simply altering the search and categorization criteria, maybe I'm opening a bag of worms I really ought'nt, but I'm not sure how that could be controversial... and I don't have a good idea as to your question Yuser, I was hoping people had some ideas.Wintermut3 05:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's the problem. While I agree that users under 13 shouldn't post their personal info and contact details on the net, there is going to have to be a good way of warning users without 'letting the cat out of the bag', to use a popular expression, before this proposed policy can be brought into action. Really I don't think anyone should post their personal information on the net, but that's another story altogether and is not discussed with this policy. I would welcome feedback and constructive critism on my comments. Thanks! Yuser31415 06:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think my original reply to this topic handles this, but I'll try to rephrase it. I don't think that the inability to notify a child privately is holding this proposal back. Similar methods are already in use for this sort of thing. There is simply an "exposed period", if you will, between when people first start addressing an issue and the time oversight is invoked. This delay should not kill this proposal, since similiar measures seem to have some success despite their suffering from the same problem. This proposal seeks to increase the instances which qualify for intervention, but the general idea is that this sort of intervention is a net good despite the delay and "exposure period" before the information is really gone. To be honest, if you disagree with that last statement I'm not sure where is appropriate to take it up--perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Oversight or Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. BigNate37_(T) 14:25, 12 December 200

I think the time delay argument has been taken care of :) Actually it's a very small risk. However, reporting the user appropriately is going to be, to use a popular term, a "pain in the neck". It's easy enough to write a bot that monitored all the admin boards for the report typical of these cases; however to do so the user would need some previous programming experience, and 99.9999% of our Wikipedia editors are probably not adult predators, so the chance is very small. Cheers! Yuser31415 07:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's totally useless. People who identify as children may be banned? Kof. There are tons of children here. That's no big deal. This is simply aimed at providing a means to attack paedophiles. I don't think there's any value in doing that because existing policies or the hammer of Jimbo can be used to deal with anybody who does anything untoward on-wiki. Grace Note 10:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a policy on personal pictures?

What about children who upload pictures of themselves or siblings? Even if they're innocuous, let's face it, there are some who might be overly interested. Should there be a notification process for them? Fan-1967 23:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please read Wikipedia:Images of living people. (Radiant) 14:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The above link doesn't really have anything to do with the question, but I think if their sibling is non-notable, then it should be deleted and the user warned. I suppose if a kid uploaded a picture of him/herself, they could be notified that it's probably not a good idea. --WikiSlasher 13:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre, irrational proposal

"Users who disrupt Wikipedia by ... disclosing personal information may be banned on a case by case basis."

Good Idea. Let's Ban Jimbo Wales. He disclosed his real name, his real address and he even had the brazen audacity to let the world know his daughter's real name.

"...banned on a case by case basis." We all know that will immediately be interpreted to mean "banned or blocked on a case by case basis." Which means any administrator can allege that any tid-bit of info, such as for example the user name I registered using a first and last name, is "personal information" and they can block me willy-nilly. Appeal my block to rational administrators? That happens like never. When it does happen, it's called a "wheel war" and the consequence is even more drama. How about "It is disruptive to involve this volunteer in unnecessary drama around teenage administrators' personal interpretation of rules created by an unruly crowd."

Then we have anons on this page offering legal advice -- Coppa doesn't apply to Wikipedia, one declares with confidence and authority. In the world I live in, courts decide what law applies to a particular set of facts. COPPA could and might apply to Wikipedia. The foundation would do well to seek a second opinion other than that of the advocacy attorney they hired to advance their most radical ideals as law while avoiding an actual contest in a court of law. If law enforcement officers can find a way to penetrate Wikipedia and catch predators in action, I am offended by those disingenuous wiki-anarchists who attempt to interfere with my right to live under the rule of law by interfering with a legitimate police investigation and by establishing their own arbitrary laws that they then enforce capricously whenver it suits their largely unregulated moods. Hal Lamont 21:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Users who disrupt Wikipedia by posing as children, projecting a provocative persona, and disclosing personal information may be banned on a case by case basis."

Nice try. Your version of that quote takes out some important wording. See the emphasis, which is my own—they didn't say or, they said and. Your other error is in assuming that Jimbo's information disclosure constitutes disruption. So you'd need to establish that Jimbo Wales is causing disruption by the information he divulged while provocatively posing as a child. Please don't abuse elipses. As for the rest of your arguements here, they involve wild assumptions, an extremely cynical view of administrators and gross generalisation of weeks of discussion. Exactly what positive outcome can you possibly hope to bring about with comments of that nature? If you aren't trying to provoke others or disrupt constructive discussion here (see Troll), please be less abstruse about what you are trying to bring about in terms of this proposal. BigNate37_(T) 22:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre arguments

"There is no reason at all why it is our problem to protect your children," Amarkov wrote near the top of this "talk" (written discussion) page.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Moral issues aside, there are legal issues. Any venue is responsible for liabilities that result from the policies of venue management. If children are allowed in the venue -- or on the ride, so to speak -- and the ride poses a particular risk for persons of that size or age, the venue is responsible. Drivle out new policies all you like. Until Wikimedia Foundation takes responsibility for the content it produces, and for the secret administrators it empowers, its reqruits will continue to languish under the myth that neither they nor the Wikimedia Foundation is liable for any harm they cause while using the Foundations wide-open communication venue. Until that time, the opus will continue to be dominated by an adolescent notion that it is responsible for nothing, aware of everything and incapable of causing harm to itself or to others. Hal Lamont 21:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We are responsible if Wikipedia directly causes harm to your children, yes. But Wikipedia is not going to molest anyone. Editors on Wikipedia may, and if they do, that's bad. But it's not Wikipedia's fault. If someone abducted your child after making friends with them in a park, would you blame the owners of the park? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Hal, but you do not appear to have much knowledge of Wikipedia at the present. Let me bring forward a few failings with your argument.

Wikipedia is a 'volunteer' encyclopedia-writing 'organization', if you wish. It is not our fault if your children write personal information about themselves here. You are dumping your children into a large project, with trolls and vandals (and many well-meaning people as well), and expecting us to take care of them. If your children aren't mature or knowledgeable enough to deal with their own information, perhaps they are not ready for Wikipedia yet.

The best thing you could do would be to talk to your children about Wikipedia. Tell them that it is a great project, but since it is so large, there could be adult predators among its many editors. Because of this, it might be a better idea if they did not release any public information.

Cheers, Yuser31415 02:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy could be modified.

I don't think it's really important what the user's age is, it's how mature they are. A user's contributions cannot be assumed to be of a certain nature purely from their age; I could be twelve, but by looking at my contributions, you wouldn't ever know.

And Wikipedia shouldn't be responsible for what happens for the children that get killed, molested, etc. --Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rejected, prescriptive

Prescriptive guidelines don't have widespread consensus per definition.

If you would like to rewrite this policy so that it describes what people are doing (and thus the current consensus), feel free to remove the rejected tag *after* the rewrite.

Kim Bruning 15:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't just revert it, although I'm sure the next person to see it will, but what exactly is your point? Obviously something doesn't already HAVE consensus, or it would be policy/guideline already. The point is to discuss and FORM a consensus. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Call me in the year 3000 :-)

In the mean time you could actually just go out and try what you're suggesting, as that's the normal way to obtain consensus in these here parts.

Buuut ... seeing the current demographics on wikipedia, you'll probably be facing a revolution, of epic Ed Poor kills VFD or Kelly Martin kills userboxes proportions.

In conclusion, I figure you have a snowballs chance in hell to get consensus approval on this matter via any approach, but at least you'd get fairly decent feedback in a matter of days.

<innocent look>

--Kim Bruning 15:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized that the current proposal is the exact wording of the ArbCom results, copypasted onto the page. I'm not entirely sure what that counts for, but... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh <four letter word> , have I been looking at older versions... <checks>

I've been looking at several alternate versions, and then tagged the wrong one, basically. *turns red*

Ok, since this is descriptive already, we can just mark it as guideline at least.

My Apologies.

My comments above were aimed at proposed changes to the page, none of which are actually the current version.

Kim Bruning 16:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Guideline

See above. Kim Bruning 16:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that this version is acceptable to all, even though we might have each preferred slightly different; we can archive the entire discussion, and each of us now go and work on other things, until some future unforeseen difficulty arises. DGG 03:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the ArbComm stated that the community should continue to work toward consensus on a "whole" policy or guideline. The fragments on this page are just a starting point. I am not sure how to proceed at the moment. Maybe a time will come when the community is ready to override the handful of people who have a problem with this concept. 6SJ7 04:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, it is a good starting point, but it needs work as there still are many objections on this talk page. It is unclear which of the two sides, if any, is a vocal minority. Also, one might say there should be one page that deals with privacy, but at present there are several (including Wikipedia:Privacy, WP:YOUTH, m:privacy policy and even WP:BLP touch on the subject. >Radiant< 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case I think we can build upon this latest formulation. Alternatively, we could use it as a guidelinefor the present, and work on it further. I think establishing a precedent of having brief policies like this might be helpful (smile)DGG 15:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The current version is not suitable for a guideline. It makes some general statements of common sense which are either covered by other project-space pages or of no value anyways. The response section is not guideline material, for two reasons: stating things happen on a case-by-case basis accomplishes nothing and would happen without any relevant guideline or policy; stating that users may be appropriately counseled is useless for a guideline since if counseling was to happen it would not require a guideline and if nobody wanted to counsel an editor, having a guideline would not make them do so. Talking about deletion and oversight merely refers to other policies that still apply with or without this page. This is a nice complation of ideas, but hardly something I'd want to push forward into accepted status. Nevermind the fact that it falls short of the original goals of the proposal.

I find it distasteful to take a proposal that tries to accomplish something and rework it so it does something else (or does nothing at all). There's no harm in using the current version as an interim working copy, but it shouldn't be presumed to be finished. I personally would prefer one of two outcomes for this proposal. One option is that this proposal starts from where it is now and works towards accomplishing the original goal of protecting children's privacy (i.e. keeping their personal information private despite their own intentions) while taking into consideration the objections that have been brought up and no doubt will continue to be until they are addressed. The other option is to reject this proposal. My feeling is that if some editors wish to do something different, propose it elsewhere. BigNate37_(T) 16:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What is on the page now are the statements of the Arbitration Committee, and they were placed here by Radiant. I acquiesced in it because I thought it was a reasonable temporary solution -- and I agree with it having a "Guideline" tag for the reasons given by Kim Bruning above -- although I think it needs to be modified to identify the ArbComm ruling as the source of the statements. However, this page is not a good long-term solution, partly because the original proposal was about "privacy" and these statements are really more about "disruption." The ArbComm also made a statement (and I do not know whether it is on this page or not) something like, the community should continue to work toward consensus on a policy on protecting children's privacy. Therefore, I think that a "rejected" tag would be inappropriate. It may be that this page should be renamed to something that suggests that it is about "disruption" rather than "privacy", but on the other hand it contains the ArbComm's statements in the arbitration over "Protecting childrens' privacy". I do not think there is an easy answer. In the meantime, it appears that administrators are formulating their own individual solutions to particular situations that they run across, as they were before this policy was even proposed. In some cases, this amounts to exactly what was proposed. 6SJ7 17:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that because the arbitration comittee said we should continue to work on it that it can never be rejected. I followed the arbitration case closely, though I appreciate your clarifying comments. I don't like what Kim did in rejecting this and then moving it to a guideline, because it seems like an attempt to lend credibility to the guideline tag. I realise that's not in the spirit of WP:AGF and I have no reason to think that Kim had a hidden agenda so I didn't address it directly or revert to the proposal tag when it happened. Anyways, I think that the supporters should be moving this towards the child information/privacy issue cautiously, with more attention paid to the constructive criticism and civil objections this time. If that doesn't get it consensus, that's the definition of a rejected proposal. BigNate37_(T) 18:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we are moving with a great deal of caution. (Almost imperceptibly, in fact.) There is nothing wrong with leaving things as they are for right now. Why don't we all leave this alone for a couple of weeks. It's the holiday season. People have other things to do. It now says that it is a proposed guideline or policy, so fine, let's leave that tag there. (Of course, I don't speak for others as to what tag should be there. I find the tag warring objectionable, but I am not going to do anything about it right now.) In the meantime, if anyone has a great idea about how to proceed, it can be put on the talk page and discussed. There is no rush. There is no deadline. 6SJ7 19:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Common sense is common sense, actually all wikipedia policy is (or should be) just a written down description of what we consider common sense, and people still don't get all of it. (vide WP:IAR which gets misunderstood a lot <sigh>)

So saying that common sense == guideline is a great idea, with due respect to Radiant for disagreeing with me. :-P

Now about protecting young wikipedians:

Note that you will never get consensus for anything that actually goes against the will of said young wikipedians, for not only do they form a sufficiently significant part of our community, they may in fact form a majority.

So, here's the deal: you'll need to find methods that are both common sense, and have the suport of young wikipedians.

This isn't true just because I say so; but simply because otherwise your attempt at creating a guideline will fail, due to a simple failure to take the state of consensus on wikipedia into account.

Sounds like you folks have taken on a tricky task. Good luck with that.

Kim Bruning 00:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't actually disagree with you, Kim, but the situation is rather more complicated than just this page. >Radiant< 12:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This sounds good but..

"Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled"

Users that act in good faith and are reasonable contributors, should not be "counseled". Wikipedia should not be a time-out service, and should avoid alienating contributors for such a minor detail. Making good-faith, longstanding contributors welcome should be our primary priority, with their safety a definite second. New users that do so (but edit in good faith) should definitely be told "hey, this isn't really a good idea", but if someone under 18 with 5,000 edits wants to put their email address on their page, can't we give them some wiggle room here? Do we really want to lose good contributors by sitting them down with the big, bad adults at the dinner table to be "counseled" out of giving contact information? (one must wonder what "counseling" means, or if it's simply a euphemism for forcing them to remove info with the ArbCom) Why don't we just take away their Game Boy and send them to their room? --Wooty Woot? contribs 20:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Counseled means being told "hey, this isn't really a good idea". Having 5,000 edits is an indication of dedication to typing, not of maturity. I have nothing against young and mature editors editing. The way I know they're mature is if I can't tell that they're young. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Counseled" is the term used by the ArbComm in their decision, which is where all of the material currently on this page comes from. (It probably should say that on the page itself, but I have hesitated to do so out of concern that this would "open a can of worms" with certain individuals.) I do not think the ArbComm meant the term "counseled" to have the condescending tone that Wooty thinks it has. I do think they just meant "told" (see AnonEMouse's edit summary) or "advised." This does bring up another issue, which is whether and how the ArbComm ruling can be "advertised" in some manner that is not subject to editing by others who do not like what the ArbComm said. 6SJ7 20:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If the arbitration case results are to be a starting point, they shouldn't be denoted on the actual proposal (this talk page is fine). This way, editors would be less concerned about not changing someone else's wording (someone else with more perceived authority, perhaps) and more concerned with improving the proposal. BigNate37_(T) 21:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If the connotation of counseled is displeasing to you Wooty, you're welcome to suggest a more neutral wording for giving advice, which is the meaning I assume was intended (see wikt:counsel, noun #2 and verb #1). I'm not partial to the word itself, but the idea is arguably important. BigNate37_(T) 21:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not the word itself, it's the context. I think "advised" is a better term. --Wooty Woot? contribs 21:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording. BigNate37_(T) 22:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for your understanding. --Wooty Woot? contribs 22:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've adjusted it some more. 6SJ7 23:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC) _{Rest of comment moved, see below. BigNate37 01:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)}

ArbCom statements

As stated in the edit summary, I am not sure about tinkering with what the ArbComm said, but it is ok as long as it means the same thing. I am also going to add a link to the ArbComm decision, as at least a temporary measure. 6SJ7 23:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If we are really intent on keeping pure what the arbcom wrote, then let's either reject this or blank it, because we won't be able to move forward otherwise. BigNate37_(T) 23:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait, people are trying to keep pure what Arbcom wrote? Since when were they the final authority, forever, on stuff? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

BigNate and Amarkov, you can relax, I was just raising the issue. I already edited it myself. 6SJ7 00:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was biting my tongue already ;) It's hard for me to keep calm when I disagree with what's going on, so please excuse me if I speak too sharply in order to make a point—abstruse language obscures matters, and sometimes I reply too quickly and without a cool head. As an aside, I'm refactoring this topic so it's clearer what we're discussing now. Feel free to revert if you disagree, it's a minor detail—I can put my comment back later in that case. BigNate37_(T) 01:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• As a starting point, that's fine. As an ending point, the page should stand on its own. The arbcom doesn't create policy/guidelines, so the final version needn't reference what it was based upon (it was also based on several threads on WP:ANI, for instance). >Radiant< 09:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like the idea, but the ArbCom statement is better than previous versions of this page, being less USA-centric and less possibly offensive to editors under the age of 13. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat's approach, what wikipedia is not

We are not a day care service for children. Every person (not just children) should be careful in the amount of personal information they disclose on the internet. Just like how it isn't the responsibility of the electric company when people finger electric plugs, it isn't our responsibility to "protect" children's privacy
While you are welcome to be nice and advise people (not just children) not to disclose too much personal information, you should not base this on a policy, guideline or even an essay. This proposed policy in no way is relevant to help us create a better encyclopedia, not to mention we have articles about famous children (such as younger actors/actresses).
Cat ^chi? 21:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice the electric plug manufacturers go to great lengths to cover the live wires in plastic coatings, and make the slots too small or narrow for fingers to fit in. We can't do everything, but we certainly can, and should, do what we can. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why should we be required to do anything at all? (Note that you can voluntarily warn children and adults alike without the policy) Cat ^chi? 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As a side note: I don't know about en:wp, at least one of the better admins on the german wikipedia was 13 when he was voted admin (yes, he's taking a wiki break right now). He has also been using his real name, gave an interview to the press, and disclosed all kinds of personal, identifying info. Should we have scared him away (The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!), or even block him?...

Privacy, sexual harassment, etc are serious issues, but unrelated to age. It's our responsibility to look after naive or careless users of any size, shape, color or age. I mean - just replace "children" by "women" in this text. It would still be reasonable, in a way, but it would cause an outcry if seriously suggested... think about it. -- G. Gearloose (?!) 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good points by both Cool Cat and G. Gearloose. I agree. -- Ned Scott 21:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The rest of the internet doesn't give two craps about the safety of kids, unless you consider a "YES" and "NO" button safety. WP is a place of knowledge, keeping children from being fully able to use it is not only pointless, but potentially even neglectful. Though this wouldn't apply to me, as i'm over 13, I can still say that as a minor (in the USA anyway), wikipedia is fine as it is. My parent knows that I use the internet, knows that I might do things on the internet which aren't nessicerily "kid friendly", and is fine with that. On the other hand, a parent that DIDN'T want their child accessing wikipedia has plenty of tools, which can be cheaply obtained at any store, or even just monitoring the child. WP:NOT Benjamin Spock, and we should keep it that way. The parent should decide what's best for their child, weither that be unmonitored internet usage, or no PC at all, and WP shouldn't discrimate or block users based on their providing personal info, as long as it doesn't violate other policies (such as WP:NOT#WEBSPACE), as this will most likely not only drive away potential wikipedians, but also be abused to ban people without any firm reason -- feb^talk 16:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CoolCat. It's ultimately the responsibility of the parents to monitor children's safety online. -- Selmo ^(talk) 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We should do some things, yes. We most certainly should discourage giving personal information, because there is absolutely no reason you would need to. But a policy to say certain people can't is going too far. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And in any case it should be all or none - discriminating against any sub-class is against the wiki spirit, IMO. Crum375 03:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• There's also Wikipedia:Privacy which is not specifically about children. >Radiant< 11:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thats better IMHO. I would like that to be an essay rather than a guideline though :/ Cat ^chi? 13:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• I just want to say that I am in pretty much full agreement with what Cool Cat just said. Abeg92contribs 04:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

New merge tags

I see that merge tags have been placed on WP:YOUTH, WP:CHILD and WP:PRIV, but there is no indication in the tags of the direction that the merges would run or what information, if any, would be deleted from any of the pages, or on whether the resulting page(s) would end up being tagged as guideline, essay, policy, etc. Additionally, the "discuss" links all point back to the talk page for that page, which would potentially result in a discussion of the proposed merge (or merges) in three different places. Can we have a discussion in one location? (For now I am putting this comment on all three pages, but if a single page is designated for discussion and the links in the tags are changed, I wouldn't mind this comment being removed from the other pages.) And can we have some details of what exactly is being proposed? Once we have that settled, I will have some comments and possibly counter-proposals. I do think that, at the very least, some material should be added to WP:PRIV that is currently on one or both of the other two pages. 6SJ7 19:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• What I'm proposing is simply having one page to deal with the subject, rather than three divergent ones. I believe the best (as in, most neutral) title for this page would be WP:PRIV. The resultant page wouldn't automatically be guideline or policy because none of the three source pages is; it could be either an essay or a proposal, I have no particular preference for either. >Radiant< 10:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I find it astonishing that anyone would consider "Protecting childrens' privacy" to be a non-"neutral" title. I understand there is a debate about prohibiting the posting of certain information, but I can't imagine that the goal is a controversial one. But anyway, to the subject at hand: I believe that with some additional material (specifically some mention of the "child issue") WP:Privacy should be a guideline -- at least the last version I looked at. I will look at it and add what I think should be added over the weekend and at that point, if you want to tag it as a guideline you will get no objection from me. I think that all of it is just common sense; my only objection to it (which I believe was shared by at least one of the arbitrators) is that it doesn't go far enough, but that does not mean there is anything wrong with what it says. I think WP:YOUTH should remain as an independent page, as an essay (at least for now), to signify that some people feel that stronger action is needed. If "Privacy" becomes a guideline then "Youth" should be modified to link to it, and perhaps to state that this page ("Youth") contains suggestions that are in addition to what has been accepted as a guideline. I have been thinking of adding some things to that page that would make it even more divergent from "Privacy" anyway. As for "Child", I remind you that the ArbComm suggested that there be further efforts to gain a consensus on this subject. In any event, the statements that appear there now are as much about "disruption" as they are about "privacy" -- perhaps more so. So I do not think it would completely fit in with "Privacy". 6SJ7 23:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose the merge. It is clear that there is a difference between personal information of children and adults. WP:PRIV is for personal information of all users, and is just advice - plenty of respected adult users publicize their real identities, including age and contact information - many of those in the recent arbcom election, for example. WP:CHILD is different, since it needs to specify that if a child user publicizes the same information, it will be removed. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Status?

Argh, Radiant, this was taken to ArbCom, ArbCom accepted it, and ArbCom came up with the current version. Why take it to ArbCom if one isn't going to accept their judgement. Herostratus 12:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom does not set policy, and I don't see anywhere in ArbCom's decision where they declared this proposal a policy, or even a guideline. They did conclude that the community "failed to achieve consensus" about it, and that further work is needed. I think we all agree and accept that no consensus was reached. Crum375 12:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Herostratus, I agree, we cannot ignore ArbCom. Incidentially, ArbCom said that no consensus was found and that further work was needed (which I did regard as a little no brainer as half of the people screaming "we have consensus" and the other half "no we don't" can be hardly considered consensus, ne?) So further work was attempted, without much result. Many still object (including me), while most have gone away in search of better things to work on. So still no consensus. CharonX/talk 19:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you can't find the link I'll quote you the two important sections:

Findings of fact

Failure to achieve consensus

3) Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy and alternative policies addressing the same matters have failed to achieve consensus.

Pass 5-0 at 17:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Continued work needed

1) The community is encouraged to continue working to achieve an acceptable formulation of Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy, or an alternative, which addresses problems presented by disruptive users, while avoiding the creation of a hostile atmosphere for children who are editing in good faith.

Pass 5-0 at 17:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Best wishes CharonX/talk 19:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Charon, that is a misrepresentation of what the ArbComm did. Yes, the original version of this page did not achieve consensus. But the ArbComm made certain statements that were not in dispute, and I believe it was Radiant who turned those statements into a new version of this page, which several people (including Kim Bruning, and including me) properly tagged as a guideline because there was no dispute over what the ArbComm said. I think we are going to have to ask the ArbComm what it meant. Oh, and please stop leaving threats on my talk page, I have not done anything wrong. 6SJ7 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Very simply, the arbcom doesn't set policy. You are misrepresenting the facts here. There was discussion, as the arbcom suggested, which died out with no obvious consensus somewhere in January. Then, about two months later, you unilaterally added a guideline tag, falsely claiming that "There has been no objection to any of this". >Radiant< 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, you are wrong, but as I said, I think we are (I am) going to have to ask the ArbComm to decide what they do, and what they did, and to address the associated issues of conduct, including your violations of WP:OWN. 6SJ7 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to call upon Arbcom 6SJ7. I am more than doubtful if they will again accept this matter - Last time they said "no consensus found, more work required/reccomended". Arbcom does not make policy. Regarding your allegations about Radiant's behaviour I am certain they will also be extremely interested in your behaviour in this matter. Please notify me if Arbcom accepts the case. CharonX/talk 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution traditionally starts by asking for outside opinion. In this particular case, there is a disagreement between you and me about whether this is a guideline. Outside opinion was provided by Kevin Murray, CMummert, and CharonX, who in this particular case all seem to agree with my side of the disagreement. Now I suppose this could be taken as a sign that the four of us are part of a cabal that conspires against you, but it could also indicate that you are wrong.

Incidentally, WP:OWN refers to not allowing other people to edit a page; the history here clearly indicates that I have no objection whatsoever to edits on this page; the only thing I object to is you unilaterally deciding it to be a {{guideline}}. So your accusation is groundless. >Radiant< 10:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Arbcom did not declare anything to be official policy (nor am I sure they would have the power to do so) and they specifically decided that this proposal (in it's original state) did not achieve concensus. You are welcome to seek consensus on the current version, but I certainly don't see any reason to automatically declare it a guideline or policy simply because it originates from an Arbcom decision. Guidelines and policies are supposed to be decided by the community and enforced by the Arbcom, not the other way around. Kaldari 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have requested comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). CMummert · talk 01:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to a {{how-to}}, because a rejected essay containing arbcom decisions seems incongruous. ←Ben^B4 01:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Privacy of children who DON'T edit Wikipedia

We seek to protect the privacy of children who expose their own names and ages on Wikipedia, but we let the name, age, and location of a child who (as far as I can tell) never edited here be put on a mainspace page for eight months straight, along with the inflammatory accusation of "murderer" (when he was six years old)? [1] There are BLP issues as well as child-privacy issues, and with the added factor of racial rhetoric that could easily inspire stalking and/or violence against the child -- what is that page even doing here? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 10:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If he is sufficiently notable that he is covered by multiple reliable sources, then nothing we can do will cause any more harm. If he isn't, then WP:BLP kicks in. Either way, this is totally not within the scope of this proposal. -Amarkov moo! 18:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The page has since been deleted as a violation of WP:BLP. Andrewa (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)