Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy/Archive 1

message: Should we have any sort of policy on the uploading of personally identifying photographs? NoSeptember 14:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably.  Definitely photos that show more than one child should not go up.  I think self-photos of under 13s should probably be banned as well in the spirit of COPPA. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Only for children. For adults it's a legal and ethical non-issue. Anonymity is a right, not an obligation, at least for those with full legal and mental competence. Captainktainer * Talk 15:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What they said. If the person in the photo is obviously a youngster, I think it should be removed.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uploading personal photos

message: I added a reminder that all templates unique to this situation should be substituted. Predators and other unscrupulous people could follow "what links here" from the template to find young users who are not careful with personally identifying information, and pursue unwholesome ends.Captainktainer * Talk 14:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was a concern of mine from the WP:ANI thread. It could also be a problem if people leave messages to a child with a link to this policy page. NoSeptember 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure there is a good way to completely avoid aggregating, other than policing any template or policy pages related to children.  The most sure way would be indef ban every self-identifed child account and tell them to create a new account that does not disclose their age at all and to never refer to their previous name.  I don't think that's workable at all. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you have something constructive to add to the discussion, or are you just going to continue vandalizing project pages? At the very least, it's one more hurdle that must be jumped. Captainktainer * Talk 01:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way would indef ban followed by new account not work? It's obviously No Fun At All and would have to be handled sensitively ("You are not being punished! We are happy to have you at Wikipedia."), but if it's implemented before we have too many child accounts it will be much easier than continually patrolling the known ones than for new info - and much more secure for the youngsters themselves. (And will avoid all the probs of dodgy folk searching for warnings.) How about a subhead in the Welcome template :"If you are under 13"? JackyR | Talk 13:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I know, WP:BEANS, but what about "if you are under 13 don't do ...", then all the adults do ..., but nobody under 13 ...s, thereby revealing that they are under 13 by obeying the policy?  Probably wouldn't happen but I'm just saying... --AndreniW 00:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substituting templates 

message: I'm not sure about e-mail addresses and IM names.  Clearly they would fall under COPPA if wikipedia was requiring them.  Should we in this policy disallow posting of all direct contact info (e-mail, phone numbers, IM screen names)?  Editors could still contact each other via talk pages, and wikipedia e-mail which is masked unless the child chooses to reply. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good idea for now, IMHO. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that we need to block email addresses.  As stated above, email can be filtered, and if the child has any responsible parent, the parent would screen the email before allowing the child to use it.  I do whole-heartedly support blocking IM screen names, that's how a lot of the predators find the children online.  --AndreniW 23:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-mail and IM names 

message: You know, some people could just lie about thier age. There's no policy stating you have to be truthful in telling thier age, so people could easily lie around this policy. Another concern of mine is not every editor is in the United States of America and America's guidelines, like COPPA, should not be pressed against editors in Canada, England, Australia, Singapore (a lot of editors are from there :p), etc. so what gives us the right to make people not in America obide by a United States federal laws? 216.78.95.224 14:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they lie about their age, that's fine; that removes legal liability and helps protect them from predators. Hear no evil, see no evil. Furthermore, the English Wikipedia is headquartered in the State of Florida, and hence must abide by all applicable United States laws. This policy is as much about covering our own behinds as anything. If contributors are uncomfortable editing under the restrictions imposed by United States federal law and Florida state law, they should edit elsewhere. Captainktainer * Talk 15:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So how does lying help protect someone from a predator? 216.78.95.224 15:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the predator doesn't know that the editor is underage, he doesn't know to target that person. Captainktainer * Talk 15:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An 11 year old who does not disclose his age (or claims to be an adult) will not be targeted for unsavory attentions.  On the other hand, we really want nothing to do with someone who posts, "I am a cute 11 year old who likes ponies and teddy bears.  If you want to be my friend call me."  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." Thatcher131 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I am aware, the law in question applies only to commercial sites, not nonprofit ones like this; also, though some of its provisions are fairly vague, it seems to be aimed at sites that actively solicit personal info from children (e.g., for marketing purposes), not at general-interest sites where a kid might happen to wander by, but is not being actively enticed to provide such information.  Since Wikipedia registration does not require providing any personal info, and is not being promoted specifically to kids, we're probably OK.  (But IANAL.) *Dan T.* 20:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Treat 'em like children.   (Especially as someone claiming to be under 13 and posting personal contact information may be trying to make contact with real children for unpleasant reasons.) Thatcher131 (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and the converse is true. If somebody claims to be 12 years old, they're blocked for a year. If somebody who is actually 12 never reveals this and "flies beneath the radar" nobody is any the wiser and they can go about their wiki business like the rest of us. --kingboyk 08:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Age and Location

message: I removed the section on school name, for the following reasons:
*Given that young contributors will usually edit the articles on their schools, the same information could be gleaned from their contributions history
*It would essentially forbid them from declaring an interest in their schools' articles, as that could be construed as declaring attendance at the school
*Given that many schools have a population equal to that of a village or small town, it isn't privacy-compromising enough to fall within the words or intent of COPPA
Anyone disagree? Captainktainer * Talk 15:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should discourage/forbid people from putting their school name on their page as: 1) not all schools are large - some are very very small 2) although the information may be gleamed from edits (we can't help that), it may not - not everyone edits their school article. Let's avoid as much personal information as we can. --Doc 15:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI my 8th grade graduating class had 19 students. Just so you'll know.--Edtalk c E 19:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My seventh and eighth grade classes each had only 11 students, for the record. I feel revealing school information could be privacy-compromising. --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My twelfth-grade class had only one student, but good luck finding the Vernon-Dunlap School to track me down by. --Carnildo 01:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  School name 

message: Has anyone actually talked to the foundation's lawyers about this proposed policy? JoshuaZ 16:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will w-mail Brad later today.  However, I think we need to confront this issue for moral and ethical reasons even if it is not a strict liability issue. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite shocking that they're not proactive on this issue. There also seems to be no clear definition about whether Wikipedia is a common carrier (in which case we shouldn't censor anything for fear of losing that status) or a publisher (in which case we are currently far too lax). I hope that whoever gets elected to the board shortly can get some answers to these and similar questions. --kingboyk 07:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundations lawyers?

message: If this proposal attracts continued interest, maybe we should implement it as a modification of WP:USER rather than a separate policy.  That might be logical since it really is a policy directed at user space, and it would have the side benefit of preventing aggregation of children via links to a child-specific policy. (WP:USER has thousands of links already) Thatcher131 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:USER]] 

message: And let me say also that the reason for tying this to COPPA is mainly to provide a reasonable basis for picking a cutoff point for this policy.  (Although whether the US congress is reasonable may be open to debate).  If we are going to prevent self-identified children from including certain things on their user pages, we need to have some cut-off point, and age 13 per COPPA seems as reasonable as anything else I can think of.  I wouldn't care if this was entirely decoupled from COPPA and left to stand on its own, but we are clearly to the point where we need to at least think about this issue. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty standard in engineering to "see who's already done it" before reinventing the wheel. I think this applies here when attempting to create policy. Nothing wrong with basing it off of existing policy somewhere else. If the COPPA says "under 13" and you make a policy that uses "under 13" there's nothing wrong with that. People will (and should) start wondering about geo-political balance when COPPA says "under 13" and you say "refer to COPPA". BigNate37(T) 22:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale 

message: I have edited the "Nutshell" and the "Overview" section to reflect the changes discussed above, plus a few other ideas in other sections of this talk page that I agree with.  I also decided that the Overview section really needed to be reorganized so that it clearly stated what the policy is.  I hope nobody thinks I went too far, if so we can talk about it.  One problem that already existed, and remains, is that the "Overview" and "Processes" section somewhat overlap.  What I really think should happen is that what is now the last paragraph of "Overview" (the bulleted items) should be merged with the "Processes" section, and the resulting section should be re-titled "The Policy" or something like that.  This would then be followed by the "Comments" although those could possibly also be worked into the "Policy" section.  (I have not analyzed each of the "comments" to see whether that would work for all of them.)  Unless there are objections, I will work on this but probably would not get to it for 36-48 hours.   6SJ7 03:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes made; more changes needed

message: The current text of this proposed policy says:
: In the spirit of COPPA, Wikipedia should not publish personally identifying information provided by children without the consent of their parents or guardians.
I'm not sure we have any resonable means to get parental consent. We can't determine the validity of anything sent to us electronically. We don't have any process that I'm aware of to receive, let alone judge, any physical information. I'm wondering if we need to make clear that regardless of claimed parental consent, we will remove any of the agreed-upon bits of personal information from identified children. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good idea.  I started this off very narrowly tailored, and it seems like people want to expand it.  Fine with me if that's how the consensus run. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is little point in including the "without the consent of their parents or guardians" portion since as JeffQ states, we have no way of getting verified parental consent. I also don't think there is a need to complicate this proposed policy: the simpler, the better, in my opinion, so it is more easily understood by all.Firsfron of Ronchester 23:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dealt with this in the current version.  Parental consent is referred to as an element of the COPPA statute, but as for Wikipedia policy it is specifically stated that due to practical difficulties in obtaining consent, personal information for self-identified under-13s may not be posted regardless of parental consent. (In fact, I put that part in bold type.)   6SJ7 00:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good to me. I appreciate the bolding, BTW. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't really handle parental consent 

message: I'd like to propose that as part of this solution we delete all age-related templates and Wikipedia categories, whether or not they refer to under 13s. --kingboyk 08:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree with that. What possible help can that be in protecting minors? What does a category or userbox identifying elder Wikipedians have anything at all to do with Wikipedians under 13? Forgive me if I don't see the point of censoring Wikipedians' group affiliation (and organized editing) because... umm... well? Captainktainer * Talk 08:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't help build an enyclopedia and encourage the use of the site for social networking rather than enyclopedia-building. Most importantly, though, it seems to me unfair to deny young users the ability to categorise by age or publicise their birth year without making a blanket ban. That's my rationale, feel free to disagree :) --kingboyk 08:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your reasoning now, though I still strongly disagree. There are many things minors are not permitted to do, because they have diminished reasoning and planning capabilities in critical areas. It's fair to discriminate when there is a legal and moral necessity in discrimination. As for the issue of social networking, that is a separate issue altogether, but briefly, if something encourages Wikipedians with similar interests to collaborate on issues that affect or interest them, I think that's a good thing. WikiProjects don't get enough participants as is, and something that makes it harder to find Wikipedians on the basis of a common interest could choke off a valuable resource in increasing the WikiProject rolls. Captainktainer * Talk 08:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And pray tell me, which WikiProject needs to know how old a member is? :) --kingboyk 09:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A hypothetical WikiProject:Geriatrics, for instance; I haven't been through the entire list, which is fairly extensive. There's a Wikipedian association specifically for youth, not all of whom are under 13; but given the number of templates identifying users as elders, I wouldn't be surprised if there is one. And, if there isn't, there probably should be; Wikipedia's coverage of age-related subjects isn't the best in the world (you get what you pay for, right?). Captainktainer * Talk 09:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK :) Thanks for the dialogue, let's see what other folks have to say. I'm quite used to being wrong btw :) --kingboyk 09:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates and categories 

message: Can someone explain to me the value of anybody identifying themselves on WP as under 13? Given WP:NOT a social network, there is no need for anyone to do this, or to reveal their current school. It has no value in terms of building an encyclopedia. I know some kids (and adults!) like to post their ages, but WP:USER exists because there are many things users like to post that are unacceptable. This should be one.
A half-way policy of "You can state your age, but, um, is that piece of info enough to ID you? What about that piece together with that piece?"  will be enormously hard work to police, will make kids feel continually niggled at, and won't actually have the desired effect of protecting them from undesirables (we can't police their MySpace or personal webpages, and once identified they could still be contacted through WP).
Is there any good reason not to block all accounts identified as under-13? (In the nicest possible way, with lots of forewarning as the policy is brought in, so people don't just log in and find they've been blocked.) JackyR | Talk 14:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. (So if a woman hides a vial of now-prohibited Vaseline in her bouffant hairstyle next week and attempts to board a Delta jet, someone will surely advocate a worldwide ban on in-flight bouffants thereafter.) As for children on Wikipedia, so long as we restrict personally identifiable information, and do so in the least restrictive ways possible (i.e., no full names, specific locations, telephone numbers, email or instant messenger addresses, etc.), we have then taken the vigilant steps required to protect children on this site. In fact, some demographic data posted to user talk pages may actually be helpful to understanding how the enyclopedia is assembled: For example it might be useful at some point for someone to understand that the initial editor of the articles on PiHex and Bellard's Formula was an 8-year-old American (who, very incidentally, happens to be my son). Right alongside the largely universal cultural imperative mandating child protection is an equally respected tradition of encouraging and championing our youth in the direction of socially proactive behaviors. For example, in the world of amateur radio of which I am a part, awards are sometimes given to "the youngest ham radio operators licensed this year," and young hams are known to proudly tap out their ages in Morse code, etc., much to their parents's pride. Frankly, a Time Magazine article sidebar on "The Five Youngest Wikipedia Authors on the Planet (So Far as We Know)" would do more to spotlight the democratic differences between this endeavor and The Encyclopedia Britannica than any stale academic piece could ever accomplish. I believe we should as a community (and as parents) not shy away from championing our youthful editors, and neither must we fully strip away their identities in order to shield them from unsavory contact. We should not trade wide swaths of expressive freedom whenever threatened, otherwise those who threaten us will come to control us. For that reason, protective guidelines should be cast as narrowly as possible while still ensuring their efficacy. padawer 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why self-identify as under 13?

message: The policy looks great; I'm glad someone was WP:BOLD enough to do this.  Following the User:Cute 1 4 u incident, it became very clear that this had to be done.
However, should there be a statement in the policy that explicitly pertains to the use of external links to MySpace and personal sites?  While the general idea appears to be present in the policy's current form, users may disagree with the removal of such links and state (rightly) that as there is no specific mention of this in the policy, it should not be done.  There's no point in removing information from the child's user page if the same information (and even more) is available by following an external link on the user's page.  I propose we add the following text to the policy:
:Users who self-identify as 13 or younger must not link to external websites containing information such as their real name, phone number, home address, e-mail address or photographs.  Any editor who sees a link that falls into this category should delete it immediately and place a cautionary warning on the user's talk page.
Feel free to disagree, tweak, and criticize! :) I won't add it unless there is significant approval. Srose (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links on under-13 userpages 

message: The law says collecting the information is illegal, ie they cant fill out the email form in the sign-up. 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 -Mask  00:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is not COPPA, that's the first redirect I made since it was mentioned that way on ANI.  I actually like WP:CHILD much better and wouldn't care if the COPPA redirect was eliminated.  The point is to keep children from posting personal information, which most commenters here seem to agree is a bad idea even if it is not against the law.  COPPA simply provided a rationale for picking an age limit. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re choice of age limit: info here suggests 13-17 year olds might need consideration. JackyR | Talk 20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We shouldn't base our age limit on COPPA, but we should base our age limits on other internet chatrooms. Although Wikipedia is not a chatroom, people can still communicate. Besides, kids under 13 wouldn't edit Wikipedia as much as 13-17 yr. olds, and they're as much as vulnerable to pedophiles. --Edtalk c E 00:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I recommend that we change the age limit for complying with this policy be 17.--Edtalk c E 01:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see the justification for changing the age to 17 or any other age.  There is a reference above to "other Internet chatrooms" but this is not a chat room, and besides, I am not sure what it is about chat rooms that you are referring to.  Do they ban users under 17?  Do they prohibit users under 17 from exchanging personal information?  Personally I think the "age limit" for disclosing personal information that the U.S. Congress has chosen is as good as any -- not because they always make good laws (far from it) but because it is the closest thing to a "standard" that I am aware of.  If someone else were to demonstrate that most other English-speaking countries have chosen a different standard, that might be something to consider, but I don't think anyone has even suggested that that is the case.  6SJ7 00:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem I see with that -- we had/have a userbox saying "I'm a teen", thereby all users with those userboxes would have to be blocked.  Also, even for me, I am self-identifying as being 15.  So, uh, would I be grandfathered in?  Would all teens be given a one-week or whatever leeway period?  Or would all of us (including me) be indefinitely blocked?  You see, changing it to 17 or 18 would cause a lot more headaches.  Referencing WP:CABAL and WP:ANOT, I understand that it is the community that decides consensus on these things.  So maybe we should start something here like they do on AfD?  Just my $.02.  --AndreniW 00:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collection vs posting 

message: Perhaps this isn't the place to mention this; and this shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not this policy is adapted; but our friends at Wikipedia Review (http://www.wikipediareview.com), the link is in plaintext for a reason) seem to think that this might be a useful attack vector.  So be warned... --EngineerScotty 19:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I saw a comment there a while back about how irresponsible we were to not have something like this.  Just goes to show they'll attack anything, I guess. Thatcher131 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's amazing to read that site.  On one hand, we've far too many obnoxious admins engaging in rampant censorship; on the other hand, we've no encyclopedic authority because anyone can edit the site.  On one hand, many of 'em rant that we need to end anonymous editing of the site, presumably so that users will be more responsible if their real name is attached to their posts; OTOH, many of 'em proudly claim to have armies of (undiscovered) sockpuppets with which to cause mischief.  The good news, is nobody other than themselves takes their rants seriously.  The bad news is, that doesn't dissuade many of them from attempting to damage Wikipedia.  Oh well.... --EngineerScotty 19:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those guys are clearly dedicated to attacking Wikipedia on any grounds and by any means they can, even if it means making contradictory criticisms of everything this site either does or fails to do. *Dan T.* 01:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WR taking notice of this page 

message: How would we know if a user is under 13.  When signing up should users be asked to enter in there date of birth?---Scott3 Talk Contributions  Count: 950+  01:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's easily faked. -- Longhair 01:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, we don't care if users are under 13; we care that someone who claims to be under 13 might either be a real child or an adult troublemaker, who in both cases should be prevented from revealing personal information. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How would we know their age? 

message: Anyone have objections to a straw poll as a method of gauging community consensus on the idea behind this policy? ~ PseudoSudo 14:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I totally and unmovably object. Bad idea. That's not how we do things. We discuss, we do, we try, we reach consensus through action - we don't vote. --Doc 14:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll? 

message: 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, as there's clearly a big difference between a userpage stating the name "Jennifer Corrington", and one which says, "My name is Jenny".  Not specifying this in the policy will lead to confusion, as some people will assume first names are allowed, some will assume they're not.  --Xyzzyplugh 21:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How is "real name" defined?

message: I think this is a great idea. I have a question as to what would constitute compliance? If a user identifies as being 13 or under 13 and lists some other identifying info, the info is removed, would the user be out of compliance by reinserting the other info if the age info was not reinserted? - Elliskev 19:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's say the user never identified as a child, then we don't know.  Once we know the user is a child, there are two ways to go about it.  If we oversight all the versions that have age info, then one could argue there is no longer a problem, since only a small subset of admins who dealt with it would know.  Or one could argue that since we know this user identifies as a child, we have a moral obligation to prevent them from ever revealing personal info.  It's a tricky problem.  I would tend to favor choice alpha, but others may differ. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose trusting in the judgement of the admin will ultimately prove to take care of it. --Elliskev 23:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Age removal

message: 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. CharonX/talk 19:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also nominated several categories for deletion. Wikipedians_born_after_1992 categories and Category:Child Wikipedians. Elliskev 20:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: People are using this proposed policy as a grounds for their contribution to the deletion debates. While this might advance discussion of this proposal somewhat it is also a recipe for confusion for users unfamiliar with this proposal. The Land 21:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if my noms came across that way. I would hope that people would check the link... I've added comments clarifying (maybe?) that I chose the word incompatible over per to keep my reason in line with the fact that this is a proposal. Anyway, discussion is good. Elliskev 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Yes, discussion is good. The Land 09:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:User Child]] is up for deletion at [[WP:TfD]] 

message: I object to this proposal on the following grounds...
#Unless there is indication that this is actually problematic, it is m:instruction creep as we should not build rules upon hypotheses or speculation.
#Any legal issues should be dealt with by the Board, not non-lawyers such as ourselves (the proposal claims the legal arguments aren't essential but uses them anyway).
#It is not our duty to protect people from themselves; blocking people if they want to post their personal details sounds like a bad idea.
#The proposed policy is too easily gameable since anybody affected can just claim to be 14 instead (hey look, yesterday was my birthday!)
#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.
*>Radiant< 00:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. And civil, too. --Elliskev 23:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Captainktainer's hate speech was not civil in the least, so I don't know what the fuck he expects. JayW 23:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is the place to debate the respect due to pedophiles and their ilk. The premise of this discussion is that they are BAD for preteen Wikipedians. If you disagree with that premise, say so.  Otherwise, your shouting of BIGOT is off topic. --Elliskev 23:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the premise of this discussion is that predators search the net for personal information so they can find children. Pedophiles are not relevant. I wasn't the one to bring the subject up. JayW 23:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedophiles are not relevant? Hmmmm. Okay. I guess there's not a whole helluva lot left to discuss on this. --Elliskev 00:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ..seeing as the vast majority of child molesters are nothing more than plain-vanilla heterosexuals, yeah, it's not relevant. JayW 00:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hate speech? Hate speech? Pointing out that there are pedophiles on Wikipedia is hate speech? Did you miss the entire pedophilia userbox war? Also, you're really toeing a line here- people have been banned for less. Captainktainer * Talk 23:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accusing a genetic class of individuals of having tendancies towards rape is, indeed, hate speech. JayW 00:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That presumes that pedophilia is genetic. Unlike homosexuality, for instance, or GID, pedophilia shows little to no heritability in either individual heritability studies or meta-analyses of such. For that matter, pedophiles are indeed more likely to rape children, even if you discount the Harmann (?) model which renders all rape of children by adults an expression of pedophilia. Given that situational factors are irrelevant to a discussion of sex classes who could abuse or stalk children, the sole remaining class of interest is pedophiles. Declaring that a class with a sexual interest in children and who do not consider age of consent laws are more likely to engage in harmful behaviors is not hate speech. It's fact, and given the threat pedophiles pose to children, it would be best to act to defend children, who are, unlike adults, less capable of recognizing coercion and stalking behavior. Note that this policy does not ban self-identified pedosexuals who do not engage in sexual activity with children from participating in Wikipedia. It merely places a barrier in front of those who do and removes a source of temptation. Captainktainer * Talk 03:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...pedophilia shows little to no heritability in...individual heritability studies... ..such as Gaffney et al. (1984), who concludes that "[our] data suggests that pedophilia is familial?" For that matter, pedophiles are indeed more likely to rape children Fucking prove it. Given that situational factors are irrelevant to a discussion of sex classes who could abuse or stalk children, the sole remaining class of interest is pedophiles. Situational offenders do abuse and stalk children, so your point doesn't make any sense. Declaring that a class with a sexual interest in children and who do not consider age of consent laws are more likely to engage in harmful behaviors is not hate speech. ..and it's not what you said. In fact, I don't see any mention whatsoever of the age-of-consent. You're smearing a sexual orientation, not an opinion, with the nonevidenced and hurtful implication that all paedosexuals have some sort of primative, uncontrollably urge to rape everything in sight. Meanwhile, you're pretending the many heterosexuals who rape children just don't exist. Why are you specifically targeting paedosexuals? JayW 17:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, JayW (and Thryduulf), I understand what you're saying and it makes no sense to me. How in the world would the lowering of the profile of a group that has the potential of being targeted in any way be detrimental or even not helpful? It simply doesn't make sense to me. --Elliskev 23:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, JayW (and Thryduulf), I understand what you're saying... ..no, you don't. How in the world would the lowering of the profile of a group that has the potential of being targeted in any way be detrimental or even not helpful? It simply doesn't make sense to me. ..Allow me to repeat myself. It makes (a little) sense to ban someone from claiming to be a preteen, and this would completely solve the issue of predators. However, instead of investigating reality, Captainktainer and friends have based their entire policy around a lie. Promoting that lie is harmful, as it distracts from the actual issue; banning child vanity isn't. The people he is fighting do not exist, simply, and I'm offended so many people would blindly agree with this useless shit. JayW 23:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, explain the lie - please. Please do so in a new section. I want to know where you're coming from. Second, I've come around to the belief that this policy should concentrate on age.  I wouldn't ban preteens, though.  I'd ban discloure of preteenhood. Third, you'll catch more flies with honey... --Elliskev 23:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a legal issue and shouldn't be.  If the foundation wants to dictate things for legal reasons, they can, but that's not our goal.  This proposal exists because some people think it is generally a bad idea for kids to be sharing personal information on Wikipedia.  That's really the only point that should be in question. Dragons flight 21:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection 

message: Hello!
If you take all information that you are under 13 off talk pages and any other user page or article page in Wikipedia, can you then become a person with an unidentified page again (giving the freedom to add email addresses, etc. to pages)?
Auroranorth 08:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unidentifying yourself 

message: I apologize for the monotony, but since I was asked...
Contrary to popular belief, predators do not operate by scanning the internet for partial school names or birthdates. This is, as I have said, a ridiculous myth and a harmful distraction from the actual tactics used by predators...
..let's see. In general, they will groom the child through a more private venue until the s/he agrees to meet and provides personal information. The use the internet only because it allows them to stay anonymous during the grooming process (sometimes their targets aren't as stupid as they presumed). Although FOX would like us to believe different, predators tend to live in normal neighborhoods where there would be no need to trace internet children. They just perceive the internet as a safe grooming environment.
Online contact information is easily found even if we ban its mention. Clearly, we should just ban saying you're a preteen. It is the only answer to predators.
Understand? JayW 00:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How and where are first contact made? How is the victim selected? Would a pedophilic predator likely choose a random target where age is unknown? --Elliskev 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How and where are first contact made? Outside of Wikipedia, probably? My guess is as good as yours. How is the victim selected? From what I've seen, it seems to be an opportunity-based thing. Would a pedophilic predator likely choose a random target where age is unknown? No. Pedophiles tend to be attracted to very specific age range. A situational offender, on the other hand, probably wouldn't care that much. JayW 00:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a strong argument to be made for dumping 90% of the draft policy and simply stating that users may not identify themselves as children.  I do think it needs to be in policy form, so that the information may be removed (and the revisions deleted) by admins, and persistent offenders may be blocked until they get the point.  (Right now, if WP:USER is really a guideline and not a policy, does that fit the bill?) Thatcher131 (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good way of describing guidelines is that they are there to assist in interpreting policy. Guidelines form from common interpretations, thus you might say that WP:USER is a specific set of (albiet common) interpretations of the part of WP:NOT relating to userspace. BigNate37(T) 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevertheless, it's used as a loophole (or could be). I agree with your assessment, though. --Elliskev 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  It needs to be enforceable with consequences. I think a scaling back to prohibit self-identification as under the age of XX is reasonable and, from the objections I've seen, likely to reach consensus. I feel strongly that a policy is needed, for many reasons. Can we solicit objections and support? --Elliskev 00:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new section. 

message: Please see WP:CHILD2.  It proposes disallowing any user from claiming an age under 13, but places no other restrictions on their user page content.  I think this is actually less restrictive than allowing children to post their ages and then having to watch for a whole list of banned content. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What it boils down to is, do we allow kids to say they're kids, and then police their contributions indefinitely, or do we require them to keep silent about their age, and allow them to say anything else they wish?  There still could be issues with kids posting their real contact info and getting in over their heads in a dispute or contact with the wrong person, but the original policy always had the exception for kids who didn't say they were kids. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please see [[WP:CHILD2]] 

message: Seriously, how much time are we going to waste and how many editors will argue violently with one another before the dust settles here? This is hurting the project. We're getting further from any consensus, and I'm beginning to get embarrassed just through having partaken in this discussion. We're better off without this page. BigNate37(T) 05:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would not be bad faith, but it would be very wrong. There is an active attempt - spanning two pages - to try to determine what restrictions, if any, we will place on young editors. WP:CHILD2 is an interesting new proposal; to forestall development of this page and/or that one would be premature. Captainktainer * Talk 05:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The normal course of action is that failed policy proposals are not deleted, they are just marked as  and inactive. This is a good thing because it saves us having the same arguments time and time again - if someone proposes the same or similar thing in future we can point them at the page so they can see why we don't already have that policy. If their proposal isn't the same they can reference that to explain why it is different, but if it is the same we needn't generate any acrimosity. See Wikipedia:Content labeling proposal for example. Thryduulf 08:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is obvious from this talk page that there is no consensual support for this page. Hence,  would be appropriate. Per WP:POL, if something is counterconsensual it is rejected even if people are still discussing it (which I suppose should be called the Dead Horse Clause). >Radiant< 10:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only been up for three days... that's a really short time to dismiss a policy. Captainktainer * Talk 10:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been here for two weeks, which seems plenty. Proposals for disclaimer templates get shot down faster than that. >Radiant< 11:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you trash it you might want to take a poll or something.  There seemed to be a lot of supporters at first, who were mostly working out the details but not objecting totally. Only in the last 2 or 3  days have some strong objectors shown up. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I correct myself: I had not checked the proposal creation time. It has only been actively commented on over the last three days. Captainktainer * Talk 13:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Except, of course, when we do.  I have been trying to figure this out for months.  I think the truth is that we sometimes do vote, but we say we don't, then we try to ignore the results when we don't like them, by saying we don't vote.  And what is the point of citing to an essay, when it is not a policy?  6SJ7 03:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Essays are useless if they're never used... and when an essay is used, it is to express opinions and ideas, as outlined on  which is at the top of WP:VIE. BigNate37(T) 04:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would it be bad faith if I nominated this proposal for MfD? 

message: I created an alternative proposal which doesn't seem to have attracted much discussion, so I replace the original policy (temporarily if necessary) with the new one.
I have come to decide that allowing users to identify as children still allows them to be contacted by predators (which was the whole point in the first place), while also requiring admins to police all sorts of possibly identifying content.  Too much beauracracy and instruction creep.   And I realize now, thanks to JayW, that if an editors claims to be a child, and is contacted by a predator on the basis of that claim, all the harmful contact will occur off-wiki where we can't do anything about it until it shows up on CNN or FoxNews as the latest disappeared little girl.  If on the other hand, we simply prevent users from claiming to be children, we solve the problem without having to police content at all.  With no way of knowing editors' ages, predators will have no way to identify someone to initiate a harmful off-wiki contact.  Also, this will prevent predators from claiming to be children as bait. 
This brings me back to my original purpose in creating this proposal.  I don't really care if the Foundation is violating COPPA by allowing children to post identifying info; that's the Foundation's problem.   I simply don't want to see Wikipedia used by predators to find and initiate inappropriate contacts with children.  I don't want to see some mother on CNN crying about she thought Wikipedia was just this encyclopedia and then her daughter started talking to the wrong people. 
So basically I simply want to prevent users from claiming to be children:  No birth year, no age, no self-portraits, and no back-door hints (like attending an elementary school). That's it. Anything else they want to put on their user page is none of business (subject to WP:USER of course). Thatcher131 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, I still think the other proposal is better.  However, it would be somewhat cumbersome to enforce, and even in the "proposal stage" it got somewhat bogged down concerning the details.  Some policy to make it somewhat more difficult to use Wikipedia to contact children is better than no policy, so I would support this.  6SJ7 20:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As before, I object to this.  Knowing that an editor is a child is helpful to working with them, and hence that information serves a valuable purpose on wiki.  In contrast, knowing a child's real name, address, phone number, etc., serves very little useful purpose on Wikipedia and hence can be reasonably removed in the interest of safety.  Don't throw the baby child out with the bathwater.  Dragons flight 20:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I can't see any way that a child's (or an adult's, for that matter) personal information is necessary or helpful either for them to edit or for other people to work with them; simply knowing that a user is a child, on the other hand, can be useful if you believe young contributors should be treated differently from everyone else. And besides, while we may have a handful of pedophiliac editors, I don't think predators would come here, of all places, to search for victims; if they just wanted a child, any child, snatching them off the street seems like it would take a lot less effort than combing through Wikipedia. CameoAppearance 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am happier with this idea than I was with the original version. It's clearer about what we are trying to achieve and less irritating to enforce. The Land 20:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be careful not to presume to prohibit all mention of name/age/picture, only those of children. I'm not sure what your intent is with the wording, but I've seen other editors assert that age is a useless bit of information which should be prohibited regardless of adult/child status. I for one prefer to have the right to disclose information about myself at my discretion, being an adult. BigNate37(T) 01:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I remain of the opinion that this is a patently bad idea and amounts to biting newbies. Also, this proposal is not solving any real problem, only a hypothetical one. >Radiant< 23:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dragons Flight; it is extremely helpful to know when a wiki editor is a pre-teen or early teen.  Powers T 13:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being BOLD, let's consider the alternative 

message: How many users currently actually self-identify as being under 13? I would imagine that the number is very, very small. Most kids on the Internet want to appear older than they are, and anyway most under 13 year olds are probably not terribly interested in an encyclopaedia (yes, there will be a few, but not the average 12 year old). The fact is that 1. Wikipedia seems an unlikely venue for paedophilic grooming to being 2. There are not many under 13 year old editors on Wikipedia anyway and 3. If we institute this policy, surely all the under 13 year olds will just pretend to be older? This is a solution seeking a problem, so in my opinion should not become policy. Batmanand | Talk 21:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they pretend to be older, that's fine.  Then pedophiles won't find them.  Powers T 21:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly how much it would change the way I behave when in contact with some hypothetical child (I prefer to form an opinion of an editor based on what they've contributed, how they act, and how long they've been on Wikipedia; their age isn't really a factor), but knowing that they are a child could be useful for others to know (so that they'd watch their language, for example, or be more willing to tolerate screwups or whatnot). However, knowing someone's real name, home address, the school they go to or their telephone number won't help anyone except stalkers. And, in my opinion, a child (or anyone) who divulges that kind of sensitive information without any prompting is far, far too naïve and trusting to be allowed on the internet unsupervised. CameoAppearance 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Completely agree with CameoAppearance on naïveté, especially for adults, but we have no ethical responsibility toward foolish adults, of course. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A solution seeking a problem? 

message: For completeness, let me explain why this does not constitute a historical proposal, which is also described in WP:POL:
*A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason. Historical pages also include any process no longer in use, or any non-recent log of any process. Historical pages can be revived by advertising them.
In this case, it is clear that there is disagreement, the discussion has not died, and simply going around saying "I'm going to start enforcing this historical proposal" would be entirely inappropriate, i.e. this should not become revivable. So this proposal does not match the description of a historical one. BigNate37(T) 05:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this is not really a "historical" proposal 

message: Right now 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.  Dragons flight 17:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it makes more sense to me as well. CameoAppearance orate 03:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite as a guideline? 

message: Wikipedia shouldn't request personal information from children under 13. In fact, it should NEVER request personal information from anyone. Currently, the proposed policy would be impossible to enforce since you are not mandated to provide your age. --Ineffable3000 21:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal states that This policy applies specifically to those who self-identify as being under 13. No Wikipedia user is required to disclose their age.The proposal doesn't apply to children under 13 who don't identify themselves as such. John254 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My reasoning 

message: I re-posted this issue on Template:Cent and WP:RFC, but as references to the discussion here, with no mention of voting whatsoever.  While this issue is being discussed, perhaps we should restore the "proposed" template. John254 22:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if discussion picks back up and it's not just a rehash of what's been said several times over by the same three or four editors, I've no issue with someone removing the  tag. BigNate37(T) 22:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed restoration of "proposed" template

message: The theory underlying this proposal is already widely accepted by the Wikipedia community.  In one case I am familiar with, a self-described minor created a subpage containing personally identifying information, which was nominated for deletion through the MFD process.  I tagged the subpage for speedy deletion, along with the MFD discussion itself -- both pages were speedily deleted, by different administrators.  I can provide links to the deleted pages to an administrator with oversight privileges.  Quite simply, 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. John254 22:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read m:instruction creep? I'd be interested to hear your slant on the arguement that that's what this is. BigNate37(T) 23:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Administrators may be unwilling to act on the basis of reasoning contained in a policy proposal that has been explicitly "rejected."  If no policy specifically treats a given issue, one could have a WP:IAR justification for, say, the speedy deletion of pages containing personally identifying information about children under the age of 13, even though the pages don't meet any CSD, since the CSD simply don't contemplate this particular situation.  However, 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.  Given the views of the Wikipedia community on this matter, marking the proposal as "rejected" is rather misleading.  If we must end the consideration of the proposal without enacting it as policy, template:Historical might be a more accurate description. John254 23:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's a dangerous and backwards arguement which effectively handcuffs us into not rejecting any well-meant but ill-fated proposal. There are better solutions, perhaps, but we can't be afraid to use  the way policy mandates—it amounts to violation of real policy to prevent misuse of failed policy proposal. Aside from that, your indenting suggests you are replying to my last comment but you said nothing about what I asked. Have you read m:instruction creep? I was hoping to hear your reply to what I feel is a very valid reason why this proposal in its current form can never gain consensus required to avoid rejection. I could use a similar fallacy of logic to imply that your point is weak and defenseless because you're avoiding my question and answering your own. BigNate37(T) 00:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:IAR is a very shaky foundation upon which to rest the safety of the children using Wikipedia.  The need to protect these children far outweighs concerns about the modicum of "instruction creep" that might result from the enactment of a single policy.  Furthermore, the argument of "instruction creep" could be made against any policy proposal. However, a claim of "instruction creep" is only a valid objection to a proposed policy when the policy relates to an uncommon situation or insignificant problem that doesn't merit its own policy.  I think that the protection of the safety of children using Wikipedia definitely merits its own policy. John254 02:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou for taking a look, I feel better knowing you as a supporter of the policy have heard this particular objection to the proposal. Regarding your response to it, I tend to disagree on a few points. Specifically, this policy picks an arbitrary age cutoff rather than addressing children without specifying an age—that's a sign of instruction creep. I suppose that could be easily fixed, if others agree with me in leaving definition of a child to common sense. The other part of your assertion that I am curious about, is when you say instruction creep "is only a valid objection... when the policy relates to an uncommon situation or insignificant problem..." which implies that this is a significant problem and/or happens often. Granted, it is important to protect children but is their lack of protection resulting in problems right now? I don't know, but I would be surprised to hear if any child has been stalked by a predator more than once or twice through Wikipedia since it's started—and I mean stalked, as in found through Wikipedia and pursued off-Wiki—please correct me if that is not what this policy is trying to prevent. I suspect opinion on this is rather polarised, and I don't think we're going to agree with eachother any time soon, but I appreciate your taking the time to respond to the instruction creep arguement. BigNate37(T) 04:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An excellent reason to enact this proposal as policy