Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:37, 21 September 2006

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: 20

• 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

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: 14

• AndreniW
• JoshuaZ
• Carnildo
• Dan T.
• AndreniW
• padawer
• Mask
• EngineerScotty
• Scott3
• PseudoSudo
• Xyzzyplugh
• 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)

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

This project talk page is actively undergoing a major edit for a little while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. This page was last edited at 18:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (18 years ago) – this estimate is cached, update. Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited for a significant time. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Under construction}} between editing sessions.

THE ABOVE TAG REFERS ONLY TO THIS SECTION

• User:6SJ7
• User:AndreniW
• User:Auroranorth
• User:Batmanand
• User:BigNate37
• User:CameoAppearance
• User:Captainktainer
• User:Carnildo
• User:CFIF
• User:CharonX
• User:ChrisGriswold
• User:Christhebull
• User:Coredesat
• Dan T.
• User:Doc
• User:Dragons flight
• User:Ed
• User:Elliskev
• User:EngineerScotty
• User:Firsfron of Ronchester
• User:Herostratus
• User:Ineffable3000
• User:JackyR
• User:JayW
• User:Jeff Q
• User:John254
• User:JoshuaZ
• User:kingboyk
• User:Longhair
• User:Mask
• User:NoSeptember
• User:padawer
• Powers
• User:PseudoSudo
• User:Radiant
• User:Scott3
• User:Srose
• User:Thatcher131
• User:The Land
• User:Thryduulf
• User:Xyzzyplugh
• User:Zscout370

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
• User:AndreniW
• User:Auroranorth
• User:Batmanand
• User:BigNate37
• User:CameoAppearance
• User:Captainktainer
• User:Carnildo
• User:CFIF
• User:CharonX
• User:ChrisGriswold
• User:Christhebull
• User:Coredesat
• Dan T.
• User:Doc
• User:Dragons flight
• User:Ed
• User:Elliskev
• User:EngineerScotty
• User:Firsfron of Ronchester
• User:Herostratus
• User:Ineffable3000
• User:JackyR
• User:JayW
• User:Jeff Q
• User:John254
• User:JoshuaZ
• User:kingboyk
• User:Longhair
• User:Mask
• User:NoSeptember
• User:padawer
• Powers
• User:PseudoSudo
• User:Radiant
• User:Scott3
• User:Srose
• User:Thatcher131
• User:The Land
• User:Thryduulf
• User:Xyzzyplugh
• User:Zscout370

3: LONGER COMMENTS FROM EDITORS WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY COMMENTED

4: --> *NEW* EDITORS COMING FROM THE RFC, PLEASE COMMENT HERE_*NEW*_EDITORS_COMING_FROM_THE_RFC,_PLEASE_COMMENT_HERE">