Misplaced Pages

talk:Child protection: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:10, 9 December 2015 editRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits Archive older stuff to Misplaced Pages talk:Child protection/Archive 8← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:41, 26 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Child protection/Archive 9) (bot 
(149 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
⚫ {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 8 |counter = 9
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(20d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Child protection/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Child protection/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
⚫ {{talk header|search=yes}}
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes
{{Controversial-issues}}
}}
{{Policy talk}} {{Policy talk}}
{{WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch}}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot II |age=20 |small= |dounreplied=yes}}


== Guidance for younger editors‎ == == No legal threats ==


I added a sub section below "Handling of reports":
On ] I started a new sub section ] please add and edit where needed.
I just want to keep them safe. my guidelines in short are:


{{Blockquote|1=
* '''Don't post photos of yourself''', your friends, or your family ed (anywhere)
<nowiki>===</nowiki> No legal threats ===
* '''Don't mention wikipedia ''' that they are there
{{pb}}
* '''Do tell them personally''' that they are in that photo. (so they can take action when needed)
If you post a legal threat on Misplaced Pages, you are ]. A polite report of a legal problem is not a threat and will be acted on quickly.

}}
I think this is a good addition to the page, but do edit it when needed or you want to improve the text. (parts of the text was taken from the text on userpages earlier in the page. ] (]) 20:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
:I'm not sure if this has ever been a significant problem on Misplaced Pages. It is far more of an issue on social media sites where there are apps that allow smartphone photos to be uploaded with just a few clicks. On Misplaced Pages or Commons, an image is likely to be deleted if it serves no encyclopedic purpose. A photo on a user page showing that the person is under 18 would be inadvisable if the user wanted to protect their privacy. Wikipedians are not banned from revealing their age on their user pages, but some caution is needed for younger users.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 07:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

== Updating ] ==


As you're all probably aware, the WMF now look after Trust & Safety issues relating to children. It's probably about time the ] of the child protection policy was updated as the way it now works has changed considerably since the policy was first drafted. There are two aspects.

;Child endangerment, child protection and child pornography
- The Arbitration Committee no longer has a role as the WMF now look after this area of trust and safety. As before, editors must not report their concerns on-wiki but instead do so by email. The reports should now go to WMF Legal at {{nospam|legal-reports|wikimedia.org}}.

;Apparent on-wiki advocacy
- However, editors appearing to be pushing agendas can be referred to any administrator or to the community in exactly the same way as any other POV-pushing allegation.


but it has been removed with the edit summary "this doesn't seem to have any obvious relevance here".
Obviously, the third paragraph of the "handling of reports" section is unaffected.


The section is of course relevant, because a natural inclination of an agreived parent is to threaten to seek legal recourse, and we want to assist them, not have to block them. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 08:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I've mentioned this initiative to update the policy to ] and expect he'll comment in due course. In the meantime, thoughts, everyone? &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 22:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


:This seems rather hypothetical. I can't recall any incident where there was a ] problem as a result of this policy.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 09:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
:Well, can't the ctte just forward any e-mail it gets to legal, where it cannot action it, because it sounds like you can action others, or are you saying we should have conversations like, 'such and such user has a pedophile agenda' at ANI? ] (]) 23:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
:: It's all subject to the unchanged paragraph three, so that kind of conversation should take place in strictly neutral terms. But the committee hasn't seem POV pushing in this area for well over a year. It's already mostly handled by admins. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 23:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)‎
::::"It's already mostly handled by Admins". So then Arbcom, which in theory and practice is in part there to 'watch the watchers', would have a role to play. Or, to put it another way, administration is why we have the two levels of admins ''and'' arbcom. ] (]) 15:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'm not sure I understand the point here. ArbCom still has a role to play should admins misuse the tools or misconduct themselves even in the situations covered by this policy. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 22:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::What's the proposal, "You can report the problems to admins off wiki, but do not report to arbcom"? And if the admin then reports it to arbcom because they want guidance, Arbcom says what? This window is closed? This just seems bureaucratic, where the message should be: 'report, report, report (just be appropriately discrete)'. -- ] (]) 23:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: No, make the report to the admin, who then deals with it on-wiki, either themselves or via one of the noticeboards. There's no reason for ArbCom to be directly involved at all (and indeed haven't been in most POV-pushing actions). &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 08:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
::: when this would be addressed here at this talk page. Having talked the matter over with James Alexander via email, he knows that I was disappointed that no action was taken against an editor I recently reported as a ] (months ago)...with on- and off-Misplaced Pages evidence to support it. Then again, on Misplaced Pages, this editor (and he will soon read this post of mine, no doubt) rejected any implication that he is a pedophile and chalked up one of his pedophilic Misplaced Pages posts to being a misguided youth. I was clear with James Alexander that even if the editor was an underage teenager at the time he made the off-Misplaced Pages post, people do not simply grow out of pedophilia (in fact, pedophilia emerges in a person before or during puberty). Judging by what James Alexander told me, an editor simply being a pedophile is not enough to get the editor blocked by the WP:WMF. If that's the case, needs changing in that regard as well, and (especially Lysander, who is also no stranger to editing Misplaced Pages) can do their happy dance. Just look at how they ; so sweet (the LANCB aspect is utter fantasy, though). ] (]) 00:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


== Policy status of the ban clause ==
*If in practice, the Arbitration Committee no longer has jurisdiction over certain issues that this policy says it does have, then the policy should definitely be updated to reflect that change in practice. ] (]) 01:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


@] The ban clause was added by a banned sock back in 2018, who was reverted twice consecutively by @] and @], I failed to locate a discussion related to the addition either. This failed the most basic ], and 6 years don't count as forever. However, the part that irks me the most is how it is simply not how banning works, banning only occurs by community discussions, three strikes socking violation, or ArbCom or WMF decisions. ] (]) 00:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I've enacted this change on the policy page. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
:Regardless of our opinions on how banning works, the wording should follow what actually happens. I have only seen a handful of cases and they were years ago, but my recollection is that the editors concerned ended up in ]. ] (]) 02:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::I would agree that the wording should follow what actually happens. But a quick check would show that it is not the case, I only had to click a few to stumble upon 86sedan, which was only blocked initially before the gradual escalation in 2023. Even if it is correct that all the editors ''ended'' up banned, it is clear that the bans were consistent with banning policy and not abrupt. ] (]) 09:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I can't find an exact edit where I reverted this in 2018, but Tornado Chaser's revert is . As this has policy related issues, it should not be changed without a talk page consensus.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 17:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The description of the revert that you linked is "Unexplained changes to policy." I was puzzled that the revert was not substantive, so I assume the intent was to revert the substantive change made by the same editor here, i.e. this one . ] (]) 20:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


== Editorial disputes about fictional child pornography? ==
:Given , ], it's clear that we can still report such editors to administrators here (] pretty much stated so as well above). I noted to ] that this is what I will likely be doing, since our administrators are more likely to block an editor simply because he's a pedophile or advocates child sexual abuse and/or statutory rape. Per above, my report to the WP:WMF did not go as smoothly as my reports to WP:ArbCom on this matter. That stated, if it's a case like , including the recent ones (yes, we still get editors like this openly advocating child sexual abuse), WP:WMF will not hesitate to act on that. For me to not want a pedophile editor blocked, the editor would have to be like ] editors; I mean the Misplaced Pages editors who have been open about being pedophiles but note that they fight against their child sexual abuse urges and believe that child sexual abuse is wrong. Even if they are lying, it's not a problem for this site if they don't openly express pro-child sexual abuse views or engage in pro-child sexual abuse editing, and so on. ] (]) 20:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


Um this page doesn't really go into this but I think that maybe it should? Sometimes situations aren't as clear as go to ANI/someone is POV-pushing and this page could probably say something about that. For example, ]. ] ] 18:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:Pinging ], James Alexander's main account, to make sure he gets this message. ] (]) 20:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:41, 26 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Child protection page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

No legal threats

I added a sub section below "Handling of reports":

=== No legal threats ===

If you post a legal threat on Misplaced Pages, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. A polite report of a legal problem is not a threat and will be acted on quickly.

but it has been removed with the edit summary "this doesn't seem to have any obvious relevance here".

The section is of course relevant, because a natural inclination of an agreived parent is to threaten to seek legal recourse, and we want to assist them, not have to block them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems rather hypothetical. I can't recall any incident where there was a WP:NLT problem as a result of this policy.--♦IanMacM♦ 09:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Policy status of the ban clause

@Alison The ban clause was added by a banned sock back in 2018, who was reverted twice consecutively by @Ianmacm and @Tornado chaser, I failed to locate a discussion related to the addition either. This failed the most basic WP:EDITCON, and 6 years don't count as forever. However, the part that irks me the most is how it is simply not how banning works, banning only occurs by community discussions, three strikes socking violation, or ArbCom or WMF decisions. Kenneth Kho (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of our opinions on how banning works, the wording should follow what actually happens. I have only seen a handful of cases and they were years ago, but my recollection is that the editors concerned ended up in Category:Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I would agree that the wording should follow what actually happens. But a quick check would show that it is not the case, I only had to click a few to stumble upon 86sedan, which was only blocked initially before the gradual escalation in 2023. Even if it is correct that all the editors ended up banned, it is clear that the bans were consistent with banning policy and not abrupt. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't find an exact edit where I reverted this in 2018, but Tornado Chaser's revert is here. As this has policy related issues, it should not be changed without a talk page consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ 17:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
The description of the revert that you linked is "Unexplained changes to policy." I was puzzled that the revert was not substantive, so I assume the intent was to revert the substantive change made by the same editor here, i.e. this one . Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Editorial disputes about fictional child pornography?

Um this page doesn't really go into this but I think that maybe it should? Sometimes situations aren't as clear as go to ANI/someone is POV-pushing and this page could probably say something about that. For example, Talk:Shipping discourse#There needs to be more distinction about pedophilia compared to other aspects of shipping discourse. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)