This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roger Davies (talk | contribs) at 22:10, 9 December 2015 (Archive older stuff to Misplaced Pages talk:Child protection/Archive 8). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:10, 9 December 2015 by Roger Davies (talk | contribs) (Archive older stuff to Misplaced Pages talk:Child protection/Archive 8)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| 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: 20 days  |
 | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
 | 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. |
 | Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct) | |||
| ||||
| 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: 20 days |
Guidance for younger editors
On Misplaced Pages:Guidance for younger editors I started a new sub section Misplaced Pages:Guidance for younger editors#Photos of yourself, your friends, or your family please add and edit where needed. I just want to keep them safe. my guidelines in short are:
- Don't post photos of yourself, your friends, or your family ed (anywhere)
- Don't mention wikipedia that they are there
- Do tell them personally that they are in that photo. (so they can take action when needed)
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. WillemienH (talk) 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.--♦IanMacM♦ 07:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Updating handling of reports
As you're all probably aware, the WMF now look after Trust & Safety issues relating to children. It's probably about time the "handling of reports" section 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 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.
Obviously, the third paragraph of the "handling of reports" section is unaffected.
I've mentioned this initiative to update the policy to James Alexander and expect he'll comment in due course. In the meantime, thoughts, everyone? Roger Davies 22:49, 18 November 2015 (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? Alanscottwalker (talk) 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. Roger Davies 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. Alanscottwalker (talk) 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. Roger Davies 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)'. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 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). Roger Davies 08:32, 24 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)'. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:21, 23 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. Roger Davies 22:54, 23 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. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've been wondering 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 pedophile (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, the current policy needs changing in that regard as well, and the editors at BoyWiki (especially Lysander, who is also no stranger to editing Misplaced Pages) can do their happy dance. Just look at how they keep tabs on me; so sweet (the LANCB aspect is utter fantasy, though). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 19 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. Roger Davies 23:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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. Mz7 (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I've enacted this change on the policy page. Worm(talk) 10:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Given your changes, Worm That Turned, it's clear that we can still report such editors to administrators here (Roger Davies pretty much stated so as well above). I noted to James Alexander 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 the Tisane cases, 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 Virtuous Pedophiles 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. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Pinging Jamesofur, James Alexander's main account, to make sure he gets this message. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)