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

"self-identified children"

I find finding #4 (Self-identified children) to be poorly worded. It appears to make an exhaustive list of what people who self-identify as children can be, but in fact they can be just about anyone. I think it would be better to simplifiy it to "people who identify as children may or may not be children". (Radiant) 10:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Radiant! Someone self-identifying as a child might be an astronaut, the Pope, or even Jimbo! Thryduulf 00:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"disruption"

Remedy 2 (disruption) presently reads like "posing as children" as well as "disclosing personal information" are to be considered disruptive and a bannable offense. I believe that's not the intent, so maybe it could be worded better. (Radiant) 10:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Reasonable efforts"

Principle five ("Reasonable efforts to protect privacy of children"), while obviously true, doesn't touch upon the heart of the issue: what is, or is not, a "reasonable effort"? Is WP:BITE important? In the extreme, some people assert that it is reasonable to preemptively block all children because they may be targeted by pedophiles otherwise. I think this could use clarification. (Radiant) 10:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel that it is vitally important to note that the only efforts that are "reasonable" are those that a consensus of Wikipedians agree are reasonable. At present it allows anybody to define what is reasonable without reference to anyone else. I'm sure many vandals find it perfectly reasonable to replace the content of a featured article with swear words and images of penises. Thryduulf 00:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong way

ArbCom is going the wrong way on this. I've spoken before to this point and I'll be brief here. I agree that the community has so far failed to deal with this issue properly. I don't agree it is an emergency but I do agree that it can blow up in our faces at any time. So can many pending issues.

Some proposals here speak directly to issues of user conduct. I do not dispute these. Some enourage our community to work on this issue. This is laudable. Others evicerate the point of the proposed policy. There is no longer any reason to discuss it since ArbCom speaks.

By resolving a community policy issue by fiat, ArbCom may do good in the short term but it undercuts the entire process of policy formation and community maturation. The next highly contentious issue will be brought here -- or people will expect it to be brought here; this is even worse. This road leads to a community that spends all its time debating petty policy issues, extending instruction creep in all directions, but is unable to address truly important issues. After all, Dad will sort it out.

Our community has spoken strongly against meddling in policy affairs by ArbCom. This is distinct from any argument on substantive issues. No matter how we feel about the substantive issue, we do feel we must be allowed to work out our differences among ourselves. I believe ArbCom has a responsibility to respect our community and restrict itself to issues of user conduct only. John Reid ° 04:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposed decision does not seem to "dictate" a policy, or in your words, resolve it by fiat. I think the intention is to suggest what principles might form the basis for a policy. What is supposed to happen after that, I am not sure. The whole policy-making process on Wikipedia is baffling to me. It does not seem to work very well, and this policy is a perfect example of some of the problems. You have a handful of people on either side who really care one way or another, and the result is no consensus. Where are the rest of the thousands (tens? hundreds of thousands?) of active Wikipedia editors? If they don't care, you can't make them care, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a policy. It makes sense (to me) to have some body of people have the ability to at least nudge the "community" in a direction that seens to be in the best interests of the project? (Which is all that Fred really seems to be proposing; the proposed decision specifically says the community needs to keep working on it, and it outlines what might be only in the most generic way.) And right now, what body is there, other than the ArbComm? I don't think they are trying to be "Dad", and they are elected members of the "community.". I saw somewhere else that you suggested that there be a corresponding "legislative"-type body elected by the community as well. That seems to be a good idea. But in the meantime, I think the ArbComm can be of assistance on this issue. 6SJ7 00:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've re-read these proposed findings and remedies and decided they're not as evil as I once thought. I'll admit that Fred is at least trying to stay out of the policymaking sphere -- he's framed proposals in terms of user conduct.

I still feel a dangerous transgression is taking place. Fred starts from:

...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.

That's hard to argue with -- intentionally so, I'm sure. But qualifications are shaved off one by one until by Remedies, we have:

Users who disrupt Wikipedia by posing as children, projecting a provocative persona, and disclosing personal information may be banned on a case by case basis.

Now, I don't have to project a sexually tinged persona; I merely have to be "provocative" to be banned. I don't have to link to my MySpace page (possibly containing photos of my soiled panties and a map to my bedroom); I just have to talk about myself personally. This could be stretched to cover a statement that I'm a student at ThisOrThat High School, therefore I know for a fact that we have a new gym. Toss in my link to a local newspaper report on the scandal that contractors, while finishing gym construction, spied on girls showering and whooom! I'm over the line. There's not even any need for a separate showing of disruption.

You can quibble with this but of course that's the whole problem; it's vague and invites our community to return over and again to the bench for specific cases.

This is essentially an endorsement of one version of WP:CHILD. It renders the other proposed remedy ("Continued work needed") impotent. Our community has no incentive to work this out any longer. I predict no development of this proposal; either it stagnates or gets cleaned up to conform to ArbCom ruling and stamped Policy -- almost as if it really were.

ArbCom would have done far better to say, Bring us a specific case, of a may-be child who may be disrupting our community, on which admins cannot agree on proper action. We will then ban or not ban this questionable user. That keeps ArbCom within its ambit. One might still suggest that it makes policy by precedent but that's normal and acceptable.

ArbCom is required chiefly to terminate wheel wars and also to resolve difficult cases of user conduct. To do so, it must balance complex policy issues with a delicate hand. This ruling puts their thumb on the scales. John Reid ° 20:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposed remedy is a little ambiguous. It reads:

Users who disrupt Wikipedia by posing as children, projecting a provocative persona, and disclosing personal information may be banned on a case by case basis.

There are two possible interpetations of this wording.

• The first interpretation is impossible to argue with: "Users who disrupt Wikipedia, through any method, may be bannned. One way in which a user could intentionally be disruptive is by posing as a child, being egregriously provocative, and generally trying to cause trouble. The Arbcom, therefore, recognizes this fact and does not wish to forbid banning such individuals. Nothing in its ruling should prohibit banning users who are otherwise being disruptive-- even if part of their disruptiveness involves posing as a child."

• The second interpretation is, to me, more controversial: "A user who says they are a child and discloses personal information is inherently being disruptive to Wikipedia just by that fact itself. As such, users may be banned for those behaviors on a case-by-case basis."

The first interpretation is the more natural intepretation, the less controversial one, and the one I presume ArbCom intends. But I worry that someone at some point will read the ruling and assume the second interpretation. So, if Arbcom intends the second interpretation, I'd encourage them to use a different wording that makes the second interpretation more explicit. Conversely, if Arbcom just means to reiterate "Users who are disruptive may be banned on a case-by-case basis", I hope this remedy doesn't get interpreted as more than that in the future.

--Alecmconroy 22:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Read it in the context of the next proposal. "Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information."

Your second interpretation, "A user who says they are a child and discloses personal information" would clearly fall under that one, which mentions information removal, but not banning.

Now a user who "says they are a child" but repeatedly restores that removed information despite counseling would seem to no longer be "editing in good faith", and instead, would be intentionally disruptive to the encyclopedia (and probably not a child), and would fall under the former proposal, including potential banning.

By the way, yes, these are exactly the policies that WP:CHILD wanted to achieve. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Applause

Just wanted to applaud Fred's proposals here. They don't resolve the contentious issue of whether or not WP:CHILD is accepted or not, in fact they encourage continued work on it, and they manage to avoid punishing any well meaning WP users, on both sides of the question, but meanwhile they acknowledge current practice. This was a tough narrow path to walk, and I think Fred did a good job of it.AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)