Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy

I have been kind of following the debate about this proposal. I have not followed it in detail because trying to do so is like showering yourself in salted herrings. We have had discussions over the content of the page, revert wars about whether it is 'rejected' or 'proposed', several attempted rewrites (including rewrites which seemed to happen in the middle of a talk page discussion, meaning people responding to a post were looking at a markedly different version of the proposal). The proposal takes a lot of thought to understand, and contains several subtle ideas, which has not helped (nor been helped by) the chaotic manner it's been dicussed in. I am not sure that it's achieved consensus but I'm not sure it has been given the chance to because discussion has degenerated. Please ,ARbCom, do something to sort it out! The Land 20:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never got deeply involved into the discussion (though I did contribute three or four times to state my personal opinion on it). Revisting the proposal a few times several weeks apart I can only agree that not much has changed in the meantime (regarding the policy), and the discussions are seemingly running in circles, both about the contents (what is permitted or not, what should be done, if anything at all) AND the status of the policy (acceptance or rejection, consensus or no consensus). CharonX/talk 23:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urge Arbcom involvement, in order to clarify a point of process of policy making on wikipedia. In this instance, a number of users feel passionately that a policy like the one proposed makes sense, and have been discussing intensely for weeks. A few users feel passionately that it makes no sense to have a policy like this. A lot of people probably have visited the page, had their head spin, made a small remark or not at all, and moved on to other things. I think at some point we just need to agree that there will be no agreement on this and move on. The supporters feel they are being railroaded if the proposal is marked "rejected" and point out there is not "consensus to reject", but we need a way to "set aside" (I'm trying to avoid the word reject) a proposed policy if it becomes clear there is not and never will be consensus to accept. My involvement: seeing this at RfAR and vising the policy discussion page, making one edit to show I am opposed -

I am semi-involved because I contributed some of the language to the policy as it currently stands, and because I have participated on the talk page and have attempted to support Herostratus's efforts to keep the "rejected" tag off the page. I agree with all of the statements of Herostratus, above. Also, although I realize I may have wasted my time, I have just completed a total rewrite of the proposed policy, which for now I have kept in my user space, here. The concept and the end result (deletion of certain information, and potential blocks and bans) are still there, but I have addressed many of the comments about the policy that were made on the talk page. I am not sure how this might help this arbitration process, if at all. It is just something I have been meaning to do, and figured that if I was ever going to do it, this was the time. On another note, I do think it is necessary for someone (whether this committee or someone else) to authoritatively clarify the policy-making process on Wikipedia. There are varying opinions about what the process actually is, and as a result, it is convoluted and mysterious. I am also not sure that a policy should necessarily have to receive a consensus (as opposed to majority), because in the absence of a specific proposed policy, there is still a "policy" in effect, usually the opposite of what the proposal is; but of course, the de facto policy has not had to receive a consensus, or any support at all. It just exists. A consensus should not be required to overcome that. I don't suppose the committee is going to want to tackle that issue in this arbitration, however. 6SJ7 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as the policy consensus issue goes, this would be an unusual type of case for the ArbCom to take (as the case initator and other commenters above have correctly observed). I don't know quite what either side of the issue would envision as an appropriate form of ArbCom decision. Is the request that ArbCom issue a finding of fact and remedy that "Version X of the proposed WP:CHILD policy achieved consensus on Y date and shall be observed as such?" or alternatively "it is determined that there is no consensus in favor of the proposed WP:CHILD policy"? Either of those would be a highly non-standard form of decision for the ArbCom to make (although the /Proposed Decision in the so-called "Giano" arbitration has already taken one step in that general direction, whether for better or worse we shall see).

With regard to any user conduct issues, there appear to have been no prior attempts at dispute resolution, so the precedents would suggest rejection on that basis. Newyorkbrad 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a solution in search of a problem for the entirety of its existence. The red mist that descends over everyone's eyes when you say 'paedophile' obscures the simple yet essential fact that the number of children groomed for abuse via Wikipedia currently stands at zero. Of course, one would be one too many, but Wikipedia's nature - its intellectual focus, its emphasis on not being a social networking system, and most of all the fact that every post you make can be seen by any other member - make it wholly unsuitable for grooming compared with chatrooms and Myspace.

I share other's concerns about Arbcom stepping in to make policy, though there may come an issue that is sufficiently urgent to require such a step. This isn't one. If there is actually an urgent issue here, then, with all the legal ramifications and bad publicity that would result if someone did somehow manage to snare a child that had advertised his/her age on Wikipedia, clearly someone at Board level should hand down a policy. If there isn't, then let the community do a few more laps of the caucus-race until they remember that we have an encyclopaedia to write. Either way, Arbcom should leave this alone and do what they do best. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with what you write, if not for the fact that many admins currently behave as if this were actually policy - see the Evidence page for several instances. As such, we need to document it. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a proposed policy, not a proposed guideline. Pascal.Tesson 22:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree with Sam Blanning here. The proposal has shades of "would someone please think of the children" paranoia and is trying to formalize a policy for a problem that rarely happens in practice and that is being handled on a case-by-case basis, fairly well I might add. I believe that one of the problems with the deadlocked debate is that supporters of the proposal refuse to accept that the proposal is very far from being consensual: I don't want to go into the "is it really 65%?" debate but even a 2/3 majority falls short of most's understanding of consensus especially since some of the opponents feel quite strongly about their position. The underlying moral issues are fueling the frustrations of both sides and leading to pretty sad behaviour on the talk page of WP:CHILD. I was pretty depressed by the comment "We've a consistent majority in favor of the proposal. Which is a a larger majority if we discount people who didn't really understand what we're discussing here. And which is an even larger majority if we discount people who (understandably, given the demographic) don't really know what they're talking about." All that being said, I do hope that the ArbCom will not choose to impose some sort of compromise policy. I think the only sensible thing to do is to declare that the current proposal has not received significant enough support to become policy. Pascal.Tesson 22:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the case of children's privacy protection, and I feel that there is several ambiguities I'd like to ask for clarification:

• "When a user self-identifies as a child, especially if they provide personal information, the matter is frequently a subject of discussion among administrators"

What is the definition of a "child" on Wikipedia? Is a seventeen-year-old high school student a child? Where is the precise age to define a "child"?

• "users who self-identify as children, project a sexually tinged persona, and disclose personal information such as links to sites devoted to social interaction are engaging in disruptive behavior and may be banned."

What is the specific meaning of "sexually tinged persona"? And If a teenage editor post the URL of his blog on Wikipedia that has his real name on it, does it constitute disclosure of personal information?

I hope the ArbCom will give the answers to those points. Regards.

This probably isn't something for the arbitration committee (no major interpersonal dispute exists here, it's just a request for interpretation of policy and should probably be put to the community). However a "sexually tinged persona" sounds to me like an attempt to describe behavior indicating sexual awareness: flirtatious, amorous, coquettish, or sexually aggressive. --Tony Sidaway 15:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that that reference was written with a particular situation and now-banned user in mind, and I think we will all recognize it easily enough if such a thing were to recur. Newyorkbrad 19:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the decision page did not list who were banned according to the ArbCom decision.

Talk, Editor review 19:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The ban was prior to the ArbCom decision; it was a community ban agreed to on ANI. If you check the Workshop page of the arbitration case, you will find a complete discussion of what happened. Newyorkbrad 20:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "When a user self-identifies as a child, especially if they provide personal information, the matter is frequently a subject of discussion among administrators"

What is the definition of a "child" on Wikipedia? Is a seventeen-year-old high school student a child? Where is the precise age to define a "child"?

A child is someone who is immature or of the age presumed to be immature. This varies from case to case. Fred Bauder 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "users who self-identify as children, project a sexually tinged persona, and disclose personal information such as links to sites devoted to social interaction are engaging in disruptive behavior and may be banned."

What is the specific meaning of "sexually tinged persona"? And If a teenage editor post the URL of his blog on Wikipedia that has his real name on it, does it constitute disclosure of personal information?

Possibilities include: a naive, sexually precocious child; law enforcement officers posing as naive, sexually precocious children; vigilantes posing as naive, sexually precocious children; and, of course, sexual predators posing as naive, sexually precocious children. What is a sexually tinged persona? Someone who has sex on their mind. Posting information which would allow a naive child to contact a sexual predator is unacceptable. Fred Bauder 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fred, now it's more clear.

Talk, Editor review 01:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've assessed the risk of some predator homing in on him, and I am comfortedwith the idea that we are all wikipedia contributors, not adult contributors, not child, not female, black, white or whatever, we're input devices. Although I don't have a good handle on the mindset of predators, I find it hard to believe that many would see this as a great place to use, not zero of course, but few. DominicConnor (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]