Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thatcher (talk | contribs) at 23:37, 22 September 2006 (→Foundation Issue: I did e-mail Brad). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1. Archive 1

Where we stand, a summary to date

I was curious to find out if this proposal really could be fairly described as "rejected", so I tediously combed through every post and categorized (as well as I could) the editors who have made posts into one of three categories: those who, analyzing their comments overall, generally seem to support this article (obviously, with some quibbles over details); those who, analyzing their comments overall, generally seem to oppose this article; and those who's comments cannot, in my judgement, be allocated to either group -- they may have just had a question or comment, they may themselve be equivocal, or their comments may just not clearly show what their stance is, if any.

I tried to peform this task as a disinterested Fair Witness, as far as I am humanly able. Obviously this is not always easy. For one example of my methodology: if, for a hypothetical example, an editor's only comment were to be (say) "I think it should be 14", I'd consider that that editor may be inferred to have accepted the premise of the article generally. I cases of reasonable doubt I placed editors in the Unclear category. Several of these editors I think quite probably support the article generally, and some probably oppose, but if I couldn't prove it (to a reasonable degree) I put them in this third category.

The categories into which I placed the editors are shown below (sorry, they're not links, and some may be misspelled). They are listed, within each category, in chronological of their first post. Anyone who wished to repeat the process to check my results is of course most welcome to do so. Obviously if any editor feels he has been miscategorized, my apologies, and go ahead and move yourself if you want to. If anyone wants to argue the categorization of an editor other than themselves, sigh, let's do it on my talk page please, it'd not be good to get sidetracked into that here.

Supporting, as a general thing, this article as policy: 21

• Firsfron of Ronchester
• Captainktainer
• No September
• JackyR
• Thatcher131
• Zscout370
• kingboyk
• Doc
• Coredesat
• 6SJ7
• Srose
• Ed
• The Land
• Elliskev
• Herostrastus
• Jeff Q
• Dragons flight
• CameoAppearance
• Chris Griswold
• John254
• Xyzzyplugh

Opposing, as a general thing, this article as policy: 9

• Longhair
• JayW
• Thryduulf
• Radiant
• Christhebull
• BigNate37
• Batmanand
• Ineffable3000
• Powers
• There were two others: 86.133.33.235. He has three edits, one to this talk page and two to the article (they were "HOLY FUCK THE PAEDOPHILES ARE COMING. RUN FOR THE FUCKING HILLS" with a summary of "copyedit", followed by a cover edit), and 216.78.95.224. He has four edits, his first to being to this talk page (and consisting an image of a black helicopter and related material) I didn't count these in the totals.

Unclear to me what the editor's position is, if he has one: 13

• AndreniW
• JoshuaZ
• Carnildo
• Dan T.
• AndreniW
• padawer
• Mask
• EngineerScotty
• Scott3
• PseudoSudo
• CharonX
• Auroranorth
• CFIF

Remember, this is not the result of poll or vote, but just, for the purposes of clarification, a distillation. After all, its not possible to hold everything in one's head at once, so this is just an aid for for a rough idea of numbers to date.

I was quite surprised at this result, actually. I guess I Radiant's claim that this had obviously been rejected, advanced quite forcefully, had led me to believe that the numbers would be about opposite of what they are.

Of editors opposed to this article, the great bulk of commenting, in terms of wordage, was from three editors: Radiant, Big Nate, and Jay W. Most of the comments from editors supporting the article were spread over about five or so main editors.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide for himself which group of editors was the most erudite, polite, and cogent.

Now moving on to strength of argument, it's probably not possible for me to fairly decide. I would call on any new editors coming to this page who are disinterested to help sort that out. I don't think that we need a lot of new arguments; we need to let new editors coming here, if any, to sort through the existing arguments and decide which they find most convincing.

So... where from here? I think that first of all, it's quite clear that the "Rejected" tag now on the article is not correct. I don't think anyone reading the above comments could, if being honest and fair, dispute that. So the question then is, is the proposal accepted? What does it take for a proposal to be accepted? I honestly don't know. Shall it be considered accepted if few or no new editors wish to contribute? What is a quorum for these purposes? Anyone? Herostratus 06:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Dragons flight has noted that I incorrectly placed him in the "opposed" category when he is actually in the "support" category. I hope that shows that I was not biased in my categorizations, in fact leaned over backwards to be fair to the "opposed" group. Herostratus 16:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses

Thanks, Hero. I think it's clear from your tally that this proposal is far from being rejected. I'm certainly willing to let new folks come in and opine, and felt the reject tag was added much too soon, especially considering your careful tally of (albeit informal) supports vs opposes. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a democracy and as such we do not vote on proposals, even ignoring the actual posistions 19-10 is far from consensus. Taking into account the arguments above, it is even clearer there is no consensus. As explained several times above, the discussion on this page has degenerated into circular arguments that are going nowhere. Short of a major change in opinion by either side, which given the state of the discussion seems less likely to happen than a volcano erupting in New York. This means that there is no chance of a consensus being reached. WP:POL states:

"A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction."

As I have just explained, and others have before me, there is no chance of consensus being reached on this - it has therefore been rejected by the community and I have re-added the {{rejected}} template accordingly. If you still feel strongly that Misplaced Pages needs a policy (i.e. distinct from the proposed guideline) about this, and believe that you can formulate one that can gain a consensus, then start again from scratch and link to it from this discussion page, otherwise just accept that your proposal failed and move on. Thryduulf 08:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that an issue like "child privacy" quickly becomes emotionally laden. In the words of Helen Lovejoy, won't somebody pleeaase think of the children!! Of course we all mean the best for the kids, but what we should be asking ourselves is (1) what issues there are, (2) whether this proposal actually protects against them, and (3) whether the proposal has any adverse side effects.
• As such, there are several problems with the proposal that haven't really been addressed. First and foremost, the community should never make a policy on legal grounds. We aren't lawyers, and the Wikimedia board employs a lawyer who will inform us if and when legal issues are important. Second, it then follows that the age limit of 13 is arbitrary, since it was picked to conform to U.S. law. Also, a strict age limit simply encourages people to lie about it.
• Third, the way this proposal is worded, it's about blocking people to protect them from themselves. That is a very negative direction to head towards. Instead, we should write a guideline that explains why it's a bad idea, and advices people not to. Fourth and finally, it hasn't been established yet whether the problem we're talking about is real or hypothetical.
• My suggestion: draw up a guideline with the following points: (1) if you post e.g. your phone number, people can use that for nasty business -- it's your own responsibility but it may be a bad idea; (2) if you did and you want it gone, get an admin to delete it; (3) if someone else posts personal info about you, get an admin to tell them to stop.
• HTH. >Radiant< 16:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages may not be a democracy, but it is not a bully-ocracy either. One or two editors insisting on placing a rejected tag at this point is uncalled for and has the effect of choking off further debate. This is premature. Many editors have expressed support for this idea, considerably more than have rejected it. Further, the support arguments have made several cogent points; it's not at all as if a Fair Witness would likely conclude that that opposed to the article have scored higher in debate points - quite the opposite, in my personal opinion.

Thrydulf stated that even considering that numbers may not matter, 19-10 is far from consensus. If that is so, it is certainly even that much further from a consensus to reject. The statement that there is no chance that this article will achieve consensus? That is a personal opinion which cannot be proven and with which I respectfully disagree.

So I'll ask that in good faith, in light of this, that the the rejected tag stay removed. There is also no need for the page to protected, but whatever, if you want. However, page protection requests are not supposed to freeze a page in a particular state conforming to the POV of the person making the request, as was done in this cases.

As for the rest, I don't see a that much to be gained by editors restating their material to the content of the article unless they have new points to make or are responding to posts from newcomers to the page. Let's leave it up and see if will attract new editors who may bring fresh ideas to the page. Herostratus 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• It would help if you would address the points mentioned above by me and Thryduulf; calling people names is uncalled for. By the way if a page is protected against edit warring over tags, you really shouldn't be modifying the tag while protection lasts. >Radiant< 20:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• There is no such thing as a "consensus to reject". A policy is rejected once it stops evolving and it becomes clear that there will not be a consensus to accept it. Aside from the ill-fated CHILD2, this proposal has changed little since its creation. I don't expect to see people suddenly getting behind this and building a consensus for it, so in my judgment, the current version is already rejected. The question then becomes, how does one move forward? I suggested above that rewriting this as a guideline is one way. Inviting other outside opinions is another idea, though I think every pool of strong opinions on this issue has already been tapped. If people have other ideas, please share, but a sterile fight over whether or not this is rejected is not going to get us anywhere. Dragons flight 20:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• I probably should not have done, but I have reverted to the protected version - (regarding which version this is see m:The wrong version). If you (or anyone else) objects to this please do not revert it but take it to WP:RfC or other apropriate avenue (and let me know on my talk page please).
• Where there is no consensus on any issue the status quo previals, in the case of a proposed policy the status quo is that the policy is not adopted. The policy has stopped evolving and debate about it has stopped, nobody new has commented in quite a while, so it is unlikely that there will be significant numbers of people commenting in the future - i.e. it has stalled and is wasting everybody's time.
• Pedantically I suppose you could say that the policy proposal has failed rather than being rejected, but as net outcome is exactly the same (i.e. the policy is not adopted) the distinction is not made (or rather, I am not aware that it has been made anywhere previously).
• Several people on both sides of the argument, including myself, have suggested that a guideline is more apropriate and would be more likely to gain consensus. I honestly do not understand what you see as the benefit in your actions regarding this policy? I hope I am not making an 'ass' out of anybody by assuming that you must see some benefit for you to continue in acting this way? Thryduulf 21:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Where we stand II: arguments

One other aspect of consensus is strength of argument. If you had 30 editors saying "yeah whatever, go ahead" and five editors with cogent and telling arguments against, I don't think that would constitute consensus for adoption. So lets look at that.

I thought it would be useful, especially to new editors coming here, to summarize the arguments to date. I doing so, I again donned my Fair Witness robes and tried to summarize as fairly as I could, recognizing that this might not be possible. But I tried.

I'd encourage anyone to edit this to make it better reflect the actual arguments. I'd make the following requests for edits to this list: (1) "pro" editors can edit (or add to) the "pro" arguments and reubttals , to make them stronger or clearer or whatever "Anti" editors can edit (or add to) to the "anti" arguments and rebuttals to make them stronger or clearer or whatever. But puhleeze don't edit the arguments of the "other side". (2) Try reallllly hard please to not to greatly increase the amount of text in an argument or rebuttal, the whole point of this is to to be as succinct as possible and not necessarily to address every nuance. (3) if editing the list directly it probably would not be a good idea to sign your posts.

Arguments in favor:

• Protect preeteens from harmful situation. Practical reasons aside, we have a moral obligation to protect children to the extent reasonably possible
  • Rebuttal: No preteens could be harmed here, it is a myth that predators work that way, no one would ever use the Misplaced Pages for that.
  • Rebuttal: It is not our job to protect people.
• Protect the Misplaced Pages from civil harm (lawsuit or bad publicity). Let us be proactive and not wait for a lawsuit or scandal.
  • Rebuttal: As far a legal aspects go, we are not qualified to judge. The Foundation has lawyers, let them impose this policy if they deem it necessary.
  • Rebuttal: As far as publicity aspects go, it is not our job here to worry about that.
• Protect the Misplaced Pages from criminal penalties per COPPA.
  • Rebuttal: We allow but do not solicit personal info, therefore are not liable under COPPA.
  • Rebuttal: We are not a commercial organisation, and therefore COPPA does not apply.
• User pages are supposed to be for info that impacts editing. We are not MySpace, we don't need to know your age.
  • Rebuttal: It is useful to know if an editor is a child (we might give that person more leeway etc.).

Arguments opposing:

• Just implementing the age part in WP:USER would be sufficient.
  • Rebuttal: That is not sufficient, and WP:USER is just a guideline.
• WP:BEANS.
  • Rebuttal: Not WP:BEANS.
• Cannot be enforced as people could just lie about their age.
  • Rebuttal: Fine. If they do, it protects them and us from most harmful repercussions.
• Children are valued contributors not to be discouraged.
  • Rebuttal: This in no way discourages children from editing.
• Not effective as kids can do workarounds, e.g. post links to on their userpage to their MySpace page which could contain identifying information.
  • Rebuttal: At least we would be doing our best, and also probably absolving ourselves from legal repurcussions at least. No reason to believe many users would do this. Anyway this also could be circumscribed if necessary.
• w:instruction creep, absent some indication that this is actually a problem.
  • Rebuttal: Per User:Cute 1 4 u incident, recent incident where an editor (an admin) was banned for sending mash notes via email to an underage editor, and (outside of Misplaced Pages) stuff like "Xanga to Pay $1 Million in Children's Privacy Case" indicate that it is already beginning to be a problem.
  • Rebuttal: As stated above, better to be proactive and not wait for damaging lawsuit etc.
  • Rebuttal: w:instruction creep does not apply here, this is not adding layers to existing policy but forging a new policy in a new area, w:instruction creep cannot be cited to prevent all new policies and guidlines as circumstances change.
• Any legal issues should be dealt with by the Board, not non-lawyers such as ourselves .
  • Rebuttal: We are not lawyers but not idiots either. A legal education is no benefit for broad policy decisions, intelligent layman can and do decide these things everyday.
• It is not our duty to protect people from themselves.
  • Yeah it is if they are children.
• Just telling people that it might not be wise to post contact information is just being nice and doesn't need any rules (and blocking people for posting other people's personal details is already covered by harassment policy).
  • Need policy to make it clear up-front and to back up recalcitrant cases.

I will leave it to others to decide for themselves which are the stronger arguments. Herostratus 22:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses (2)

Doffing my robes now, I personally would say that protecting the Misplaced Pages from harm is, in my view, a very very strong argument. I would think it would be on editors opposing this policy to prove quite firmly that rejection of this policy could not expose the Misplaced Pages to significant harm. Herostratus 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• In contrast, I beleive it is for those supporting the policy to "prove quite firmly" that there is a problem that (a) exists (b) is actually solved by this proposed policy and (c) that not adopting the policy will expose Misplaced Pages to significant harm. Thryduulf 21:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I second that. You can make a counterargument to any argument, and vice versa (beans / not beans) but we make policy only if there's concrete evidence that this policy will improve the wiki. >Radiant< 22:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thryduulf, I believe that the cited current event (Xanga, above), demonstrates what could happen to Misplaced Pages if a minor posts sensitive information here and is killed or raped. I think this is a perfectly sensible guideline. I don't want to see people getting blocked for it or anything like that. I do, however, strongly believe that the admins and b-crats have an obligation to try to keep children safe. If Misplaced Pages is sued because a little girl posts her age and a link to her Myspace here and is raped or killed or molested by an editor and the connection is made (which it probably will be), there will be no "free information source." A nonprofit organization cannot pay the usual $100k (very low, optimistic estimate) or more in reparations during a case like that. Srose (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I Am Not A Lawyer. And neither are you. And therefore we shouldn't conjecture what legal ramifications might be. >Radiant< 22:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • We can and should conjecture on what the ethical ramifications would be. I sure as hell wouldn't want to have tossed this aside as some much instruction creep if any of that came to pass. Sure, it's a hypothetical. But, that's the whole point. We should be trying to come up with a sensible way (little as it may be) to keep it a hypothetical. Elliskev 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
          • No, we should not. The Misplaced Pages foundation employs a real life lawyer to do the conjecturing for us. If you think this is an issue, talk to him (Brad Patrick), Jimbo, or the Board. Any legal issues are for them to decide, not for us to guesstimate. >Radiant< 23:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I said ethical implications. I'm not one to leave questions of ethics to lawyers. No offense to lawyers, but... --Elliskev 23:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If we really " policy only if... concrete evidence that... policy... improve the wiki", then we would never make any policy. We do not have the resources to conduct controlled studies on the efficacy of this or any other policy. Furthermore, in the case of this policy, such studies would be highly unethical. Necessarily, in making policy, we employ arguments, educated guesses, and common sense in determining the effects of the policy, since "firm proof" simply cannot be obtained. Furthermore, a purely reactive approach to this particular problem might be a bad idea. John254 22:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That's rather close to the mark - we very rarely make policy. By "concrete evidence" I mean precisely what Thryduulf said: (a) that there is an actual problem, (b) that the proposal will solve that problem, and (c) that not adopting the proposal is harmful (and I'll add (d) that the proposal has little undesirable side effects). Proponents of this proposal have made no serious attempt to address A, B or C except by FUD, and D is pretty darn obvious. >Radiant< 23:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I'll address A. As I said above, I'd rather have the policy in place before there is an actual problem. There is nothing wrong with being proactive. Elliskev 23:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • To address the others...
          • B - that the proposal will solve that problem: Policy is supposed to be preventative. Enforcement of policy is where the soultion lies.
          • C - that not adopting the proposal is harmful: Not adopting the policy wouldn't be automtically harmful, but it's certainly not helpful (assuming you accept my addressing of A)
          • D - that the proposal has little undesirable side effects: I've seen nothing that would lead me to believe that there would be any harmful side effects. has anyone even offered a possibly undesirable side effect? --Elliskev 23:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• De-indent, edit conflict Radiant, you may not be a lawyer (maybe I'm not, but maybe I am: but you don't know and I haven't told anyone here so I don't see how you could), but it doesn't take a lawyer to know that if Misplaced Pages is found responsible for allowing a pedophile to find a child and something happens, Misplaced Pages will be found responsible. Additionally, just because we do not frequently create policies/guidelines does not mean that we should shoot most of them down. What, pray tell, are the "undesirable side effects"? That users under 13 cannot put their ages on their userpage? I don't understand how that's undesirable. Srose (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You're not a lawyer, because the arguments you use are indicative of an incomplete understanding of how law works. Also I used my l33t ninj4 skillz to find out. Legal issues? Talk to the board. Undesirable side effect? This policy talks about blocking good editors. Solving the problem? Nobody has explained yet how blocking people who claim to be 13 makes Misplaced Pages safe for children (who e.g. may be 14). >Radiant< 23:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Radiant/Srose, have you read the proposal carefully? As presently constructed there is no problem with claiming to be <=13. The only offense would be claiming to be <= 13 and posting one of a limited number of personally identifiable pieces of information. Hence, the current proposal is not about preventing children from being recognized as children, but rather about preventing other people from having the means to contact such children off-wiki. Dragons flight 23:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no proposal to block anyone who claims to be 13. The proposal is to block people who continue to claim to be 13 and post personal information after it has been removed and after they have been warned. Basically, they have to completely disregard the policy after it has been explained by an admin. Those are the people who'd be blocked. Elliskev 23:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Dragons flight, I have read the proposal very carefully, each time it's changed. I was involved in the Cute 1 4 u incident and have had this watchlisted ever since, observing. I'm not happy with what I see so I'm jumping in. Radiant: I don't know if you intend or realize it, but your comments are beginning to sound a bit incivil. Additionally, to provide an example to back my above opinions up, we have a policy on copyvios and deal with them on a daily basis even though copyright is a legal issue. Srose (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, and our policy for handling copyvios was created with the advice of a lawyer. --Carnildo 02:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Do we need to ask the lawyers about every policy? What about WP:3RR? Why does this keep getting thrown to the lawyers? I don't support this because for any fear of litigation. I support it because it's a good idea to make sure kids aren't giving out personally indentifying information. If it ends up being a good idea from a legal standpoint - all the better! --Elliskev 02:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Carnildo, if need be, we can certainly ask for a review from the Foundation's lawyer. Srose (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents, which may or may not be helpful to anyone: I don't see any way that posting personal information (whether one is a child or an adult) of the type that allows one to be tracked down in real life (phone number, address, etc) is useful to or improves Misplaced Pages; furthermore, there's kind of a hazard there anyways, regardless of age, if that kind of information is posted (adults can be raped too). However, as far as I know there isn't exactly an overabundance of editors who post that kind of information, let alone underage editors, so I'm not sure there's an actual problem here. CameoAppearance 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, my user page contains my real name, some personal information, and a contact email address. I seriously get an average of about one out-of-wiki professional request related to my image work each week. I realize that my circumstances are exceptional, but never say never. Dragons flight 03:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That certainly hampers your ability to do anti-vandal work, which maybe you're not interested in anyway. I certainly have received what I genuinely believe to be highly credible threats against myself and my family. Other editors have been severely damaged in meatspace and/or have had to leave the project. But they won't find me easily, I reveal nothing. But anyway that brings up another thing. Adult Wikipedians have had their employers called etc. but at least they're grownups. How is an 11 or 12 year old going to handle that kind of meatspace harrasment? Herostratus 05:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I deal with vandals who show up on my watchlist, but I don't RC patrol and I don't go hunting for them. Frankly I've never really understood the kind of person who likes vandal whacking; that's just not my thing. All these years with the project and I've yet to get a death threat. I know the horror stories, though (and miss Katefan0). Incidentally, you put me in the wrong category above. I'd support CHILD as policy (though not CHILD2), but I don't expect to see it be accepted. BTW, you might notice others like User:Phil Sandifer, User:Angela Beesley, User:William M. Connolley, User:Tony Sidaway, etc. who are not only public but use their real name for a username. Dragons flight 05:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they're all playing a dangerous game. Believe me, I wasn't going looking for trouble... long story. Anyway, point is, forget sexual stalking, a kid could be very traumatized by getting caught up in one of these "horror stories". Herostratus 08:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal will not help with that at all, because anyone of any age might be targeted and anyone of any age could be very traumatised. Whether or not they claim to be under 13 is irrelevant. If a user puts their email address and real name on their user page, but does not put their age on the page then this proposal explicity does not apply. Thryduulf 09:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the four criteria used by Radiant! above:

• A - There is a problem that exists and needs to be solved:
  • There first "problem" identified is a legal problem that may or may not exist in future. This is not our concern, the Wikimedia Foundation employs a lawyer to advise on legal issues.
  • If there is a legal problem they will advise us, if there isn't then we don't need to make policies about it. We don't refer to the lawyers for every policy because most policies do not deal with legal issues, the 3RR used as an example above is a very good example - there are no laws anywhere about reverting edits to a wiki, so the lawyers do not need to be involved. I don't know for certain, but where policies do deal with legal issues, e.g. copyright violations, but I would be very suprised if a lawyer or lawyers have given their legal opinion about the policies we have. Our policies must be compatible with copyright laws in the United States, and given the Foundation has a lawyer (and copyright is probably the most obvious legal area to affect the Foundation) I am sure they are compatible, otherwise they would have been changed.
  • The second problem identified is a moral one - i.e. we should be protecting children from themselves and others. I agree that children need protecting, but disagree that it is our job to do so. We can reccommend what information people post about themselves, but ultimately it is their choice whether to post it. As Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of minors children should not be using Misplaced Pages without adult supervision - we have no way of knowing whether this is happening or not.
• B - The proposed policy will solve the problem:
  • This is where the proposal falls down big time. Taking the legal problem, assuming for the purpose of this argument it exists (see above for why I beleive it doesn't), blocking people who persistently post identifying information about themselves will just lead to them rejoining under another username and doing the same again. All the activity will generate much noise and attention, which would be like a red flag to any theoretical predator who was actually trawling Misplaced Pages for victims (see arguments futher up the page for reasoning why this is not likely).
  • It falls down even further on the moral question:
    • 13 is an arbitrary limit and does nothing to protect children (or anyone else) who are 14 or older.
    • It does nothing to protect people who are 13 or younger and who don't explicitly self-identify as being so.
    • It does nothing to protect people who previously self-identified as younger than 13, but no longer do so.
    • It does nothing to protect people who do not self-identify as younger than 13 on Misplaced Pages but link to somewhere else where they do, either directly or indirectly.
  • For example, User:XYZfromAlberta does not post an age on their user page, but says "I am a myspace user", without a link. It is no great leap of intution to suspect that this is the same person as Myspace user XYZfromAlberta whose user page there includes the fact they are under 13.
    • This situation is not covered under the proposed policy.
    • If this person is abused, it is just as likely that any publicity will mention Misplaced Pages as if the person were contacted directly from here. The type of journalists who would most likely want to mention this are exactly the sort that do not care about sticking rigidly to the facts.
    • The only way to stop this would be to prohibit all users from posting links to other sites they have user pages or other identifying information on, or which link to places where they do. This would have massive, harmful side effects for a tiny theoretical gain.
• C - not enacting the policy would harm Misplaced Pages:
  • Iff there is a legal issue that could harm Misplaced Pages if we do not enact a policy about it, the lawyers will tell us.
    • The Xanga issue cited above, a legal issue, was caused by them "allegedly collecting, using and disclosing personal information collected from children under age 13." Asside from the fact that we are not covered by COPPA (we are not a commerical site), it is (in my non-legal opinion) likely that a lawyer would argue that we are not collecting the information. We would be using the information is to stop them doing it, and to block them if they continue to. If we include the age in a block log, or other record then it might be arguable that this counts as disclosing it. These are questions for lawyers - but the potential exists that this policy could bring harm to Misplaced Pages in this regard.
  • It has been suggested that Misplaced Pages will come to harm if a user here is abused. While this might or might not be the case (asside from muckrackers and those out to discredit Misplaced Pages in any way possible, who will try do just that regardless of what we do or don't do), because this proposal would not actually solve the problem it attempts to, it would be irrelevant to this question. The media (who would be the ones harming us here) will not care whether the victim was 12, 13, 14, etc, nor will they care whether or not they disclosed their age on Misplaced Pages, or whether they were contacted through an email address or MSN or IRC or Myspace or wherever and gave their age that way.
• D - the proposal has little undesirable side effects:
  • It is useful to know which users are children (see further up the page).
  • Blocking people because of their age will lead to just as much negative publicity as the proposal seeks to avoid.

In summary, the proposal almost certainly fails A and C, spectacularly fails B, and although the arguments related to D are more closely balanced, it still fails.Thryduulf 09:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

=Plea for discussion

Herostratus, please actually respond to the points raised by people who disagree with you, rather than constantly summarising to try and present your opinion as a consensus when none exists (for my view or for yours). There will never be any consensus, and nobody will benefit, until you actually engage in dialogue over the issues, rather than bemoaning the fact that there are people who disagree with you and just continue to make this page harder to follow (hence why I am making this here). Radiant!, myself and others have explained in great detail why we believe this policy proposal is not a good idea, responding to points made by other commenters, but you have not. Please explain why you feel that the proposed policy is a good thing, why you beleive that it does meet the four tests, and why you think that our objections are not valid. Thryduulf 19:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI mediation

Just a note that what tag this article should have, Proposed or Rejected, is in mediation. This doesn't affect any other aspect of the article, just the tag. For now, it has no tag, which is probably the best compromise I guess. Herostratus 22:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• According to the admin noticeboard, RFM is not presently active. FYI. >Radiant< 23:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's at the Mediation Cabal. Herostratus 05:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving on

From WP:CON:

"In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it."

We have had by my count 43 separate editors contribute to this talk page. Of these, four may be classified as "vocal and unreconciled folk": User:BigNate37, User:Radiant!, User:Thryduulf, and User:JayW. Their stance may basically be characterized as just flat against the proposal. That of course is their privilege. These editors, or at least the first three, have sought to choke off discussion and end the consensus-building process. That is not their privilege.

There will probably never be a proposal which does not have some "vocal and unreconciled folk" opposed to it. That does not mean that no new policy, procedure, or guideline may ever be put in place. Consensus does not require unanimity.

The attempt to choke off further discussion has been at least partially successful. The "Proposed" tag has been removed, and there's no way to restore it without edit warring. There currently is 'no' tag, as a "compromise", but a compromise that favors the vocal and unreconciled folk, since this article is thus no longer listed in the list of current proposals. Therefore new editors will not find it, and those that do will probably assume it's a essay rather than a proposal. So we basically need to go with who we have. This is not what I wish, but since we unable to prevent the vocal and unreconciled folk from preventing, or at least discouraging, any further input from more people, it is what we have.

The vocal and unreconciled folk have made their point: they are dead set against the proposal, period. We understand. Noted. They are, however, in a distinct minority, less than 10% of commentors. Of the remaining 90% plus, let's see what what we need to do to finish this up. Here's what I'll do to try to move the process along to a a conclusion:

Archive the talk page sections above "Where we stand, a summary to date" and append them to the archive (Misplaced Pages talk:Protecting children's privacy/Archive 1) so that the discussion up to that point may be searched more easily. I'll try to distill each editors comments, for the first section below. Then I'll contact all the editors who have already contributed (only) to ask them to contribute once again, to the second section below. Then I'll put an RfC for any new editors want to come in and comment, in the fourth section below.

Then I'll add four new sections to this talk page:

1. One for a short (about one or two sentence) distillation of that editor's previously stated concerns and so forth, from the archive, when this is possible, and made as fairly as I humanly can.
2. One for editors who have already commented to make a short (about one or two sentence) declaration of support, support if change(s) XYZ are made, or opposition.
3. One for editors who have already commented to make longer comments. (I don't see much point in this, as they mostly have made their positions clear, but if they want.)
4. One for new editors coming in from the RfC, if any, to comment. Editors who have already commented, please' don't post in this section, except to make a very brief answer to a question. This will just muddy the waters and cause confusion. Especially the vocal and unreconciled folk, please have some courtesy and restraint, thank you.

I hope and trust that this seems reasonable and fair. For clarity, please post suggestions and objections to the process I have just described to the subsection immediatly below. Finally: bullying and disruption won't be tolerated, period. Attempts to disrupt or destroy the process outlined here without discussion will be redacted out . I'm prepared to go all the way down the line on this. Herostratus 17:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments and objections to the process outlined immediately above

1: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUSLY EXISTING COMMENTS

I tried to pick a section of user comments that best summarizes that editors posts. Any cherry-picking is accidental. If I made a mistake you should fix it (but only for your own comments please).

• User:6SJ7 "Some policy to make it somewhat more difficult to use Misplaced Pages to contact children is better than no policy"

Please note: My comment quoted above was not in response to the version of the policy that now appears on the project page, but to an alternative policy that would have prohibited users from disclosing that they are under the age of 13. Therefore, it probably is not the best indicator of my opinion on this topic; see further comment in next section. 6SJ7 20:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• User:AndreniW "I'm not convinced that we need to block email addresses" "I do whole-heartedly support blocking IM screen names"
• User:Auroranorth only post was "If you take all information that you are under 13 off talk pages and any other user page or article page in Misplaced Pages, can you then become a person with an unidentified page again (giving the freedom to add email addresses, etc. to pages)?"
• User:Batmanand "This is a solution seeking a problem, so in my opinion should not become policy"
• User:BigNate37 "This is hurting the project."
• User:CameoAppearance "I agree with almost this entire policy proposal"
• User:Captainktainer "How in the world would the lowering of the profile of a group that has the potential of being targeted in any way be... not helpful?"
• User:Carnildo (two comments, not addressing the policy)
• User:CFIF "COPPA is not applicable to Misplaced Pages, as Misplaced Pages is a not-for-profit site"
• User:CharonX only post was "Template:User Child is up for deletion at WP:TfD, the lister cites WP:CHILD as deletion reason. Your input (should children be allowed to self-identify as children, if so, with an userbox?) would be welcome, since this is closely related."
• User:ChrisGriswold only comment was "It is up to you whether Misplaced Pages is not for your children. For other parents, their children may be allowed to read Misplaced Pages or be editing Misplaced Pages without their parents' permission. These are the children this is aiming to protect."
• User:Christhebull "this is going nowhere, because Misplaced Pages is non-commercial"
• User:Coredesat only comment was "I added it {real name, to nutshell] in"
• Dan T. "Since Misplaced Pages registration does not require providing any personal info, and is not being promoted specifically to kids, we're probably OK"
• User:Doc_glasgow "I think we should discourage/forbid people from putting their school name on their page...Let's avoid as much personal information as we can"
• User:Dragons flight "Knowing that an editor is a child is helpful to working with them... In contrast, knowing a child's real name, address, phone number, etc... serves very little useful purpose on Misplaced Pages and hence can be reasonably removed" "I don't see any protection policy as likely to gain consensus. As a result, I would like to encourage people to rewrite this a guideline discouraging children from revealing personal information. I think everyone agrees that children posting personal details online is usually not a good idea, and that we can plainly say so, even in the absence of a policy for deleting all such details"
• User:Ed "I recommend that we change the age limit for complying with this policy be 17"
• User:Elliskev "I think this is a great idea"
• User:EngineerScotty (two comments, not related to the policy)
• User:Firsfron of Ronchester "It looks good to me"
• User:Herostratus "I agree with this policy"
• User:Ineffable3000 "the proposed policy would be impossible to enforce"
• User:JackyR "Is there any good reason not to block all accounts identified as under-13?" "Re choice of age limit: info suggests 13-17 year olds might need consideration"
• User:JayW "A ridiculous policy which won't solve shit, cuz it's based on a myth"
• User:Jeff Q "Having a policy that keeps us within legal boundaries is not incompatible with Misplaced Pages's purposes"
• User:John254 "it appears to be widely accepted that personally identifying information from children under thirteen serves no legitimate purpose, and is potentially dangerous to the children providing it" "if we leave this proposal as "rejected", administrators who speedily delete pages containing personally identifying information about children under the age of 13 will be open to the criticism that they are somehow acting against the wishes of the community."
• User:JoshuaZ
• User:kingboyk "It's quite shocking that they're not proactive on this issue" "I'd like to propose that as part of this solution we delete all age-related templates and Misplaced Pages categories"
• User:Longhair "That's easily faked
• User:Mask "But is the children themselves posting the info illegal? I aggree it's a Bad Idea, but if that is in itself legal, the title should be something other then COPPA"
• User:NoSeptember "Should we have any sort of policy on the uploading of personally identifying photographs?"
• User:padawer "As this new century unfolds it seems we increasingly respond to imagined threats in the most reactive ways possible, and this discussion is one such example"
• Powers "it is extremely helpful to know when a wiki editor is a pre-teen or early teen"
• User:PseudoSudo only post was "Anyone have objections to a straw poll..."
• User:Radiant "I object to this proposal"
• User:Scott3 only post was "How would we know if a user is under 13. When signing up should users be asked to enter in there date of birth?"
• User:Srose "The policy looks great"
• User:Thatcher131 (wrote proposal) "I think we need to confront this issue for moral and ethical reasons even if it is not a strict liability issue." "Even if the Foundation is not strictly liable per COPPA, we do not want some tearful mom going on Greta and saying "She met him on wikipedia. I thought it was an encyclopedia." "maybe we should implement it as a modification of WP:USER rather than a separate policy"
• User:The Land instinctively think there should be some sort of policy on young/very yong users but we need to be very clear why one would be introduced." "I am happier with this idea than I was with the original version."
• User:Thryduulf "the single sentence "Don't say you're a preteen" added as a guideline to WP:USER would be at least as effective, if not more so... This realy is a solution in search of a problem.
• User:Xyzzyplugh only post was "The article doesn't define the term "real name". Does this just mean full name, or does it also prohibit a child's first name? I would think the policy should state this"
• User:Zscout370 "Probably a good idea for now, IMHO"

2: BRIEF STATEMENTS FROM EDITORS WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY COMMENTED

Please enter a brief comment next to your user ID. It would be very useful if your comment is such that it could be easily fit into one of these categories:

1. Statement of support as the proposal stands.
2. Statment of support with suggestions, but still supporting if your suggested changes are not adopted.
3. Statment of support if and only if change(s) XYZ are made, othewise opposed.
4. Statement of opposition to the proposal. At this point, if you are opposed unless major and significant changes are made, you should probably just record yourself as in oppositon.

• User:6SJ7 I guess I would be in category "2." I had rewritten a portion of this policy (see here), and most of what I wrote is still there, but upon reading it now I believe further work is needed. I think COPPA should not be in the first sentence and should be mentioned in passing, only as the source of the cutoff age. Maybe the legal discussion at the beginning of this policy is what turned some people off.
• User:AndreniW
• User:Auroranorth
• User:Batmanand Category 4. The very idea seems fatally flawed; it is a solution chasing a problem; it will simply lead to under-13 year olds pretending not to be under 13; paedophilia on Misplaced Pages? It sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous. Batmanand | Talk 22:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:BigNate37
• User:CameoAppearance Category 1 regarding the new draft, but Category 2 regarding the old one (I don't see how email addresses or IM screen names are personally identifiable, so long as they don't contain other identifying information, and I think first name and city are acceptable divulgences). I think it's been given the wrong purpose, though (having originally been proposed to prevent predators from tracking down children through Misplaced Pages, although the impracticality of doing so suggests that's a myth); it seems like it'd be better put to use as a solution to the problem of users in general being harrassed in real life due to activity on Misplaced Pages. CameoAppearance 23:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:Captainktainer -> Category 2. I would support the policy as it stands or the other proposed policy - simply prohibiting anyone from self-identifying as under 13. I prefer the policy as it stands, though. And I have absolutely no idea how any reasonable person can suggest that this policy can facilitate the rape of children. Captainktainer * Talk 21:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:Carnildo
• User:CFIF Support, children who self-identify the age of 13 should not post detailed (first name and possibly city is OK, IMO) personal info. This is in everyone's best interests, though COPPA is still not applicable to Misplaced Pages and will probably never be. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:CharonX - I have had a difficult time putting my abivalent feelings regarding this proposal into words - at one one hand protecting children is a noble goal, on the other hand I ask myself "is there a problem that needs to be solved? is this a viable solution? what are the dangers or benifits of making (or not making) this policy?" I would not have given my support to the early versions of this proposal, which would have made deletion of contanct and age information (of underage wikipedians) compulsory, but I see no harm and much benefit in permitting the removal of personal information upon request of the user involved. As we are back to the old draft I cannot help but reject it if removal of personal information is madatory. Category 4 CharonX/talk 11:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:ChrisGriswold
• User:Christhebull
• User:Coredesat - Support, though with the rewording mentioned by The Land. As for JayW, this policy doesn't facilitate the rape of children. It aims to prevent it, by not allowing young children (or predators pretending to be young children) to identify themselves as such on Misplaced Pages, and there are some cases where such a policy would be effective. --Coredesat talk! 21:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Dan T. - Category 4, unless Wikimedia legal counsel actually says that such a policy is necessary or desirable for legal reasons, which it probably isn't. I'm not big on imposing arbitrary restrictions on people based on speculative reasons.
• Doc glasgow
• User:Dragons flight
• User:Ed
• User:Elliskev I support this proposal with a few minor changes to its wording. I'd like to see references re: children self-identifying to users self-identifying. I'd like to see the list of personal identifying information as including, but not limited to. However, I'd still support without the changes.
• User:EngineerScotty
• User:Firsfron of Ronchester Support, category 1 or 2. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:Herostratus Support.
• User:Ineffable3000 (Comments in previous section are sufficient.)
• User:JackyR
• User:JayW - I oppose this policy on ethical grounds: Misplaced Pages should not facilitate the rape of children.
• User:Jeff Q
• User:John254
• User:JoshuaZ
• User:kingboyk
• User:Longhair
• User:Mask
• User:NoSeptember
• User:padawer
• Powers - I have no idea. The proposal as of right now appears to have nothing to do with protecting children's privacy and is merely a restatement of existing oversight policies. If someone would care to restore this to the previous version that had been discussed, then I can comment further. 00:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) The restored version -- prohibiting users who identify themselves as under 13 from revealing personal information -- is clear, consise, and highly appropriate. It has my full support. 15:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:PseudoSudo
• User:Radiant
• User:Scott3
• User:Srose Category 2 per The Land. I really don't see what's wrong with a preventative measure.
• User:Thatcher131
• User:The Land - Support, with recommendations that we a) de-emphasise the reference to COPPA; and B) that we reword 'self-identify' to 'identify themselves as' (self-identify implies a choice of social identity (eg sexuality), rather than simple revelation of information). The Land 20:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:Thryduulf - I am opposed to this policy for reasons explained in detail in the responses, responses (2) and other sections above. To summarise, the problem this tries to fix has not been shown to exist, even if the problem does/did exist this proposal would not fix it but would have harmful side effects.
• User:Xyzzyplugh - I support this proposal as it stands, some rewording might be appropriate but I support it whether reworded or not. My possibly nitpicking concern: I believe the policy should specify whether or not the "real name" which is not allowed includes the child's first name. The policy as written could be interpreted to mean that a child posting "my name is John" violates this policy, or it could be interepreted to mean that first name is acceptable. (and yeah, I know in some countries the surname comes first) --Xyzzyplugh 21:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• User:Zscout370 It looks good so far, but the main problem that pretty much brought up this discussion, COPPA, is not seen anywhere on this page. Another concern brought up to me in IRC is "does COPPA apply if the minor lives outside of the USA" after I had someone from New Zealand's information oversighted. I would support, even if my suggestions are ignored, but I just want whoever is going to create the final draft to consider these points. User:Zscout370 00:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

3: LONGER COMMENTS FROM EDITORS WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY COMMENTED

Thatcher131 I am unclear on what I am meant to be expressing an opinion about. The policy seems to have undergone a drastic rewrite in the last few hours from an enforceable policy to a wishy-washy piece of gentle advice. As advice, its pointless, plus possibly harmful since it indicates Misplaced Pages officially recognizes the possibility of harm but takes no action to stop it. As policy, I would prefer to simply prevent editors from identifying themseles as children, rather than allow them to self-identify and then try to prevent a series of problematic actions. However, either policy is better than doing nothing; and I am thoroughly opposed to Radiant!'s version. Thatcher131 22:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the new draft should become a guideline rather than a policy, then. CameoAppearance 23:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there is some place on Misplaced Pages for a guideline saying. "some people on the internet aren't very nice, and you should think carefully before revealing personal information," but there's no point in putting the word "protection" in the title unless we're actually protecting someone from something. The difference between warning and protecting is that protection eventually may involve some level of compulsion or force that is absent from a mere warning. Think of the difference between a "Beware of the dog" sign and an actual guard dog, for example. Thatcher131 23:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131, "unclear on what I am meant to be expressing an opinion about" is precisely the state that User:Radiant wants you to be in, as he unprotected the page and then immediately trashed the painfully and lengthily discussed and crafted text and put up some other stuff in the middle of all this... users who are implacably hostile to the central premise of a proposal should not be editing it in this way... the purpose is presumably to "win" a Rejection by default, by sowing confusion. I beg you to not let yourself be bullied in this manner... I ask all editors regardless of their position on this matter to not allow this to stand as a matter of principle. Let the proposal stand or fall on its own merits, for pity's sake. Herostratus 03:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus, assume good faith. I'm also quite unhappy with your edit summary of "restore previous version -- another attempt to make discussion impossible -- if no consensus, so be it -- see talk for more" Just because they have a different opinion than you it does not mean they want to "make discussion impossible". Anyway, I'm out of here - I was here because you invited my to comment on this proposal on my talk page, but if different opinions are not wanted here I won't stay. CharonX/talk 11:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• JayW - Predators do not scrutinize the internet in the hopes of tracking some kid who foolishly posted their name to Misplaced Pages. It simply doesn't happen. It doesn't happy here, nor does it happen anywhere else; and I would be happy to concede to anyone who proves otherwise, though I very much doubt that will happen. I whole-heartedly believe the situation this policy is designed to protect against is a terrible myth which, by distracting money, time and effort from actual issues, facilitates the sexual abuse of children.

On the other hand, some predators do use the chat services to anonymously groom children. This situation, while I doubt it would happen in such an incovenient environment, might deserve a policy.

..so, does this policy solve anything, as it stands? No - it doesn't prevent children from stating their age. Instead, it focuses on irrelevant information, like their street address and real name, which the predator can acquire privately once he has located the child's online contact information. Since many people use the same username across all the interwebs, this probably wouldn't be difficult.

The only solution, so far as I can see, is to police kids who mention their age. Any other policy is, to say the least, completely useless. Out, JayW 23:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how you can make these broad, general statements (the ones in your first paragraph) with such certainty. How do you know what "simply doesn't happen", "here" "or anywhere else"? And if your response is, "prove it does happen," my reply would be: No, I don't need to prove anything. I know that there are people who stalk children. I know there are people who use "the Internet" to do it. I also know that there are people on Misplaced Pages who advocate sexual relations between children and adults. If you believe that all of those people make a distinction between an Internet encyclopedia and an Internet chat room as a place to locate those children they are going to try to victimize, and therefore the encyclopedia does not need to take precautions, you prove it. I do not need to disprove it. 6SJ7 18:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

4: --> *NEW* EDITORS COMING FROM THE RFC, PLEASE COMMENT HERE_*NEW*_EDITORS_COMING_FROM_THE_RFC,_PLEASE_COMMENT_HERE-2006-09-21T20:56:00.000Z">

I support the aims of this proposal. The opposition seems to mainly that good editors could be blocked. I would suggest removing all of the blocking language here. The aims are still met if the information is simply removed and email disabled. This proposal should simply authourize editors to repeatedly remove personal information. Authourize admins to delete indentifying photos. And authourize b'crats to make forced name changes if a surmname is used. There is no need to ban anyone. There is no need to require these actions are taken. The information can be repeatly removed with gentle reminders that do not WP:BITE. Those that are concerned about this issue can take the neccessary steps to protect young children. Those that are concerned young children will be blocked from contributing can be assured it will not come to that. This is a real ethical issue, regardless of the fact we do not know of anyone being harmed by the lack of such a policy to date.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)_*NEW*_EDITORS_COMING_FROM_THE_RFC,_PLEASE_COMMENT_HERE"> _*NEW*_EDITORS_COMING_FROM_THE_RFC,_PLEASE_COMMENT_HERE">

• Support. This seems simple enough. Yes, they can get around it if they really try, but it's better than nothing. "You can't make it foolproof, because fools are so ingenious." AnonEMouse 22:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• I also support this policy. It is a beneficial policy, and it is well written, simple to understand and to follow. Johntex\ 03:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

New draft

It is kind of difficult to create consensus through debating the same issues over and over again; at a certain point, it becomes useful to amend the proposal to address perceived problems. I have just done that; in particular, I've removed all references to the law (since we're building a guideline on moral grounds, not legal ones) and most references to blocking (since we should be educating people who expose themselves, not blocking them in their innocence).

Please comment and/or edit. Please do not revert this for a day or two so that other people can take a look at it. >Radiant< 21:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't endorse it, though it would make a good essay. There's only one thing that is remotely policy-ish, and that's the bit at the bottom allowing editors to request that their information be removed from the database, which could be and should be added to another policy document. I am firmly convinced that we need something stronger to prevent a public relations or legal disaster. Captainktainer * Talk 22:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't like it. It's a policy entitled "Protecting children's privacy" that is targeted at all editors and has no special provisions for children? And it has no teeth - it leaves the burden of privacy on the user, including a child user. The entire point of separating children in such a policy is that they are assumed to be less capable of protecting themselves. There certainly are some who can protect themselves fine, but the way it was before allowed that, by having more competent children simply not post their age. Put back the teeth - the ability and the encouragement of other editors to remove private info of underage editors.AnonEMouse 22:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• The previous one was better, this one is watered and dumbed down. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Guys, this is not a vote. >Radiant< 22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right, it isn't. However, registering our displeasure and reasons for that displeasure is not only acceptable but should be expected. Captainktainer * Talk 22:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Certainly. Are you of the opinion that we must block children for their own protection if they (repeatedly) reveal information about themselves? >Radiant< 22:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, I am. I don't think a 9-year-old can be expected to have full comprehension of the possible ramifications of posting their personal information on a public page on a top-25 Web site. FCYTravis 23:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Absolutely and unequivocally, with no reservations whatsoever. Let us assume that I were to be fortunate enough to be blessed with children. If I were to find that, against my wishes, a child of mine were to be editing Misplaced Pages, and if I were to then find that administrators had allowed my (hypothetical and much wished-for) child to post personally identifying information and allowed him/her to continue to do so repeatedly, I would raise all hell. I certainly do not take the position that the administrators of Misplaced Pages are or should be responsible for parenting. I do take the position that there are several easily-implemented measures - the old draft - that improve the safety of Wikipedians and demonstrate a good-faith effort to recognize the unique position children are in. Captainktainer * Talk 01:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Absolutely. If they repeatedly break this policy (assuming it does become policy) then they should be blocked. Johntex\ 03:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the new version is good, but very different; its writing sounds like it'd be better as a guideline, and (as mentioned above) it seems like it'd be better implemented to prevent offline harrassment (including rape, although the chance of that seems negligible) of users of all ages. Unlike predators using Misplaced Pages, of all places, to track down their victims, meatspace harrassment is a problem that already exists. CameoAppearance 23:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Yes, of course. Herostratus 04:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have given the old draft my support, but I'll gladly endorse this new draft. Changing the removal of personal information from compulsory to voluntary we overcome the biggest obstacle for me - allowing Wikipedians to decide what to post and what not to post about themselves. Allowing the permanent deletion of the information allows them to change their mind even after they have posted information. Addendum: As Radiant said if there is a legal need to have some COPA like policy on Misplaced Pages (our lawyers should be able to tell us if so) then there is no way around it, if not I don't see why we should cry "think of the children" and place a gag-order on our younger users. CharonX/talk 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is much better than the previous version, but as it (correctly, imho) does not focus on children it is wrongly titled. I suggest merging it with the existing policy on harrasment as a "guidelines to help prevent harrasment" (or something similar) section. Thryduulf 23:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• This new version is completely devoid of any merit. It it no way resembles the original proposal. I'm gonna hold my tongue due to WP:AGF, but if these are the kinds of games that are going to be played, I'm done with this. I will get back to editing articles. Elliskev 00:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I've reverted back to the previous version. The new draft is too radically different. If there need to be changes, they should be incremental and made with consensus, not the wholesale scrapping and rewriting by one editor opposed to the old version. --Elliskev 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I've reverted back to the new draft - the old draft had definite consensus difficulties and just going back to it won't improve the situation. Still, as I said in my summary, this will be my only revert - I won't war over it if it is reverted again. (though I'll of course have to update my stance towards it from support to oppose) CharonX/talk 01:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • May I suggest, instead, creating a subpage with the new draft? The wholesale rewrite-and-replace in the middle of a straw poll is the most objectionable bit - moving the new draft to a subpage would have been the appropriate action in the first place. The reason I say this is that I would very much like to revert to the version that is being discussed above at the straw poll. Captainktainer * Talk 01:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• I support this proposed policy as it is currently written. Johntex\ 03:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Two pages

I have temporarily created a subpage dedicated to Radiant's proposal. I do think it is very confusing to switch back and forth between the two quite different suggestions while there are apparently people interested in discussing both. For the moment, I think it is better to let them coexist while the dust settles a little more. Dragons flight 03:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. An excellent example of the virtue of subpages. Now, I think, we can have a more complete and more accessible debate as to the merits of both proposals. A hybrid of both may even be a good idea, depending on how the discussion here turns out. Captainktainer * Talk 03:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I right that the main opposition to the current one (the one advocated by Hero) comes from people who believe that under-13s should not be restricted from posting personal info? AnonEMouse 14:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. Captainktainer * Talk 16:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should not censor or discriminate against any contributors, including because of their age. The only exception is if we are required to by law, if that is the case we will be advised by the foundation's lawyers.

In more detail my objections to the proprosal advocated by Herostratus are:

• (1) the problem that it attempts to fix has not been shown to exist
• (2) Even if the problem it attempts to fix does exist, it won't actually fix it
• (3) No proponent of this policy has shown to my satisfaction that it would harm Misplaced Pages not to enact it. Several objectors have raised concerns that it would harm Misplaced Pages to enact it.
• (4) Enacting this proposed policy would have harmful side effects for Misplaced Pages.

I have given detailed arguments to back up these opinions in the responses (2) section above, I have also given other detailed opinions and reasoning in other sections. Not one proponent of the policy has responded to any of these. Herostratus appears to have gone out of his way to obfuscate this talk page and make it difficult for others to gain an balanced view of the discussions. Thryduulf 16:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

1) The problem does exist. There are self-admitted pedophiles editing Misplaced Pages; any number of others probably edit without admitting to their proclivities. So long as pedophiles are permitted to edit Misplaced Pages and interact with other users (which will happen as long as detailed background checks are not performed on editors, which would be silly and beyond the Foundation's resources), children who are editors are at risk. Has there been a case that a child has been molested or harassed as a result of editing Misplaced Pages? Not that we know of, yet. However, it is important that we not allow a public relations and legal disaster to develop because we have been fortunate so far. For that matter, it helps forestall even the possibility of a COPPA challenge to Misplaced Pages, if somebody in the Justice Department gets the boneheaded idea that Misplaced Pages is a for-profit institution.

2) Will it serve as a 100% cureall? No. Despite child labor laws, children are still forced to work in some instances. Despite Megan's law, released child molesters still molest. Nevertheless, both of those laws have helped mitigate the problem, as this policy would mitigate the risk to children. Nobody, so far as I know, has claimed that any policy is a cure-all.

3) To your satisfaction, perhaps. Your personal threshold for satisfaction is, by definition, personal.

4) Highly doubtful. At worst it means slightly more work for admins, which is a side-effect of all proposed policy. At best it cuts the legs out from under the "Wikipedophile" critics who claim that we're not protecting children. Captainktainer * Talk 16:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've only got time for a very quick response atm, but re (1) - just because somebody is a paedophile does not mean they are a risk to children. Just because someone is attracted to redheaded women, does not mean that they are a risk to redheaded women. Some child abusers/kidnappers/murders/ are paedophiles, most are not. Some paedophiles will abuse/kidnap/murder children, most will not. Replace "paedophile" with "men" and exactly the same is true. Thryduulf 17:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet pedophiles are, with regard to abuse of children, the only major class that engages in stalking behavior, which is what this policy is meant to defend against. Furthermore, pedophilia is one of the only paraphilias where real-world satisfaction is only achievable by means of illegal and abusive activity. Equating it with a preference for red-headed women is a false analogy in many respects. Captainktainer * Talk 18:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I agree with every single word of Captainktainer's four-part post above. I couldn't have stated my own position any better. There is a saying, "Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good", and I think it applies here. There is no perfect solution to this issue, but there are things that can be done to make the situation better, and I think this policy would accomplish that. Second of all, I think that in Captainktainer's most recent post above, the "Furthermore..." is the real issue. An adult may have a consensual relationship with another adult, but an adult may not have a consensual relationship with a child below a certain age. The age may vary from state to state, but there is such an age designated by every state, to my knowledge. Comparing non-consensual adult-adult relationships to consensual adult-child relationships is completely irrelevant. 6SJ7 19:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

STOP we are not here to discuss paedophiles, age of consent or starting what age it is right or wrong for a person to have (possibly sexual) relationships with other people. What we discuss here is whether we 1) have a problem that needs to be adressed 2) if this proposal adresses this problem 3) would enacting/not enacting this policy negatively affekt Misplaced Pages, and if so, how. CharonX/talk 19:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you deny that pedophiles pose a threat to children, and if you deny that they engage in stalking behavior, then you will say that there is no problem. If you believe that they do pose a threat to children and that they do engage in stalking behavior, then you will agree that there is a problem. It's fairly relevant, though I doubt that any minds will be changed. Captainktainer * Talk 19:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we all agree that merely due to the fact that the Misplaced Pages has thousands of anonymous editors, and millions of anonymous readers, at least some of them, by sheer volume, may well pose a threat to children? This is whether they are more likely to call themselves pedophiles or not. If we can agree to that, we can get off the side topic argument, which, I suspect is CharonX's goal. AnonEMouse 20:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, then. Captainktainer * Talk 20:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I only mentioned these issues because some of the people who oppose the policy were raising these issues as objections to the policy. 6SJ7 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Foundation Issue

As someone who has not opined before on this issue, here is my take. I think this policy, if it is to be enacted, is very fundamental. It is not equivalent to WP:CIVIL, WP:VANDAL, or WP:3RR. It is closer to WP:NPOV and WP:RS, which are Foundation level policies as they pertain to the core founding principles as well as liabilities of WP. As such, I think that as a minimum the Foundation should review it and voice an opinion. Ideally, they should produce a position statement or core policy on this issue, which the editors can further dress up as a standard WP policy. I don't think that this type of policy should be created and agreed to without the Foundation's input. Thanks, Crum375 21:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So far, the Foundation has ignored every attempt to get input; there have been several such attempts. Given that absolute (and somewhat annoying) lack of input, we should continue forging on until told otherwise. Captainktainer * Talk 21:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I choose to assume (regardless of whether it is actually correct or not) that the Wikimedia board has become aware of this discussion and that if they choose to exercise their ultimate authority for the Foundation, they (or their appointee(s)) will do so. (As they may do on any subject.) As I said some days (or weeks) ago, I wish the board would indeed simply adopt a policy on this subject, after consulting with their counsel. Until then, however, as Captainktainer says, there is no reason for the "community" not to proceed with trying to establish a reasonable policy. 6SJ7 21:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Crum is basically correct; legal policy should only be created by the Board or Foundation. Personally I would interpret their lack of response as a good indication that they do not think this has any particular legal urgency, so they put their priority to other tasks. Might I ask, whom did you contact, and how? (talkpage, e-mail, mailing list, IRC, all of the above?) >Radiant< 21:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't contacted, but in the archive several people mention emailing Brad Patrick et al. Captainktainer * Talk 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume the Foundation will adopt policy on legal grounds if they feel it is necessary. However, we can still argue whether it is morally appropriate to take steps such as these to shield young people. Though it is couched (somewhat awkwardly) is COPPA terms, I do not consider this to be a legal question. Dragons flight 22:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is clearly a legal issue, as it pertains to first amendment, age discrimination, and I am sure many others (IANAL). The mandate we have here is to write good articles and generally improve WP. I think it is up to the Foundation to provide us with the foundation of core policies within which we need to operate. And I personally would prohibit all editors from posting any personal data, but that's my own opinion and doesn't count at all. Crum375 22:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

First amendment doesn't apply at all, unless Misplaced Pages became an organ of the United States or a local government overnight (in which case I won't contribute to the project). Even the 14th Amendment only extended Bill of Rights protections to those facing the power of the state, not private individuals. Age discrimination is an issue that can be addressed once the policy has reached consensus, at which point Jimbo et al. will provide a final yes/no. Captainktainer * Talk 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps their concern is that by producing any official legal stance on this issue they will be held liable to it in some way. Whatever their concern, since this issue is specifically liability related and goes to the core of the project (and not just the one specific project we are discussing here but all Foundation related and supported projects), I think that the effort requires their guidance. I am sure there are people reading this with access to the Foundation members; the recent elections come to mind. I think it is incumbent on them to provide us this guidance. Crum375 21:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Captaintainer. If the Foundation chooses to act on any subject, they may do so. Until or unless they do, then there is no reason to halt a user-led initiative to address a perceived problem. Johntex\ 22:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wait a second - it's said that "several people mention emailing Brad Patrick et al", but did anyone actually do that? If so, who? If not, then it's not really surprising that we didn't get an answer. I found no mention of this debate on Brad's, Jimbo's or the OFFICE's talk page. >Radiant< 22:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • From the archives, like I said. Captainktainer * Talk 22:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, exactly. Thatcher said he would mail Brad; he never said that he actually did that, or got an answer. And nobody else seems to have said or tried anything about the subject. I'd say you should try a little harder in actually contacting the Board. >Radiant< 23:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I do not think anyone is obligated to contact the board. As I said, if they want to step in, they will. It should not affect what anyone else is doing before that happens, if it happens. 6SJ7 23:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I did e-mail Brad, on Aug 30 as a matter of fact, to the e-mail address indicated on his talk page for Foundation business. I haven't heard back. I don't know what that is supposed to signify. Thatcher131 23:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)