Wikipedia talk:Child protection/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Guidance for younger editors‎

On Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors‎ I started a new sub section Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors#Photos of yourself, your friends, or your family please add and edit where needed. I just want to keep them safe. my guidelines in short are:

• Don't post photos of yourself, your friends, or your family ed (anywhere)
• Don't mention wikipedia that they are there
• Do tell them personally that they are in that photo. (so they can take action when needed)

I think this is a good addition to the page, but do edit it when needed or you want to improve the text. (parts of the text was taken from the text on userpages earlier in the page. WillemienH (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has ever been a significant problem on Wikipedia. It is far more of an issue on social media sites where there are apps that allow smartphone photos to be uploaded with just a few clicks. On Wikipedia or Commons, an image is likely to be deleted if it serves no encyclopedic purpose. A photo on a user page showing that the person is under 18 would be inadvisable if the user wanted to protect their privacy. Wikipedians are not banned from revealing their age on their user pages, but some caution is needed for younger users.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Updating handling of reports

As you're all probably aware, the WMF now look after Trust & Safety issues relating to children. It's probably about time the "handling of reports" section of the child protection policy was updated as the way it now works has changed considerably since the policy was first drafted. There are two aspects.

Child endangerment, child protection and child pornography

- The Arbitration Committee no longer has a role as the WMF now look after this area of trust and safety. As before, editors must not report their concerns on-wiki but instead do so by email. The reports should now go to WMF Legal at legal-reportswikimedia.org.

Apparent on-wiki advocacy

- However, editors appearing to be pushing agendas can be referred to any administrator or to the community in exactly the same way as any other POV-pushing allegation.

Obviously, the third paragraph of the "handling of reports" section is unaffected.

I've mentioned this initiative to update the policy to James Alexander and expect he'll comment in due course. In the meantime, thoughts, everyone?  Roger Davies ^talk 22:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, can't the ctte just forward any e-mail it gets to legal, where it cannot action it, because it sounds like you can action others, or are you saying we should have conversations like, 'such and such user has a pedophile agenda' at ANI? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It's all subject to the unchanged paragraph three, so that kind of conversation should take place in strictly neutral terms. But the committee hasn't seem POV pushing in this area for well over a year. It's already mostly handled by admins.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)‎

"It's already mostly handled by Admins". So then Arbcom, which in theory and practice is in part there to 'watch the watchers', would have a role to play. Or, to put it another way, administration is why we have the two levels of admins and arbcom. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point here. ArbCom still has a role to play should admins misuse the tools or misconduct themselves even in the situations covered by this policy.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the proposal, "You can report the problems to admins off wiki, but do not report to arbcom"? And if the admin then reports it to arbcom because they want guidance, Arbcom says what? This window is closed? This just seems bureaucratic, where the message should be: 'report, report, report (just be appropriately discrete)'. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No, make the report to the admin, who then deals with it on-wiki, either themselves or via one of the noticeboards. There's no reason for ArbCom to be directly involved at all (and indeed haven't been in most POV-pushing actions).  Roger Davies ^talk 08:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been wondering when this would be addressed here at this talk page. Having talked the matter over with James Alexander via email, he knows that I was disappointed that no action was taken against an editor I recently reported as a pedophile (months ago)...with on- and off-Wikipedia evidence to support it. Then again, on Wikipedia, this editor (and he will soon read this post of mine, no doubt) rejected any implication that he is a pedophile and chalked up one of his pedophilic Wikipedia posts to being a misguided youth. I was clear with James Alexander that even if the editor was an underage teenager at the time he made the off-Wikipedia post, people do not simply grow out of pedophilia (in fact, pedophilia emerges in a person before or during puberty). Judging by what James Alexander told me, an editor simply being a pedophile is not enough to get the editor blocked by the WP:WMF. If that's the case, the current policy needs changing in that regard as well, and the editors at BoyWiki (especially Lysander, who is also no stranger to editing Wikipedia) can do their happy dance. Just look at how they keep tabs on me; so sweet (the LANCB aspect is utter fantasy, though). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed about the need for revision to the child protection policy to reflect the fact that an editor can't be blocked just because of a sexual attraction towards children, unless they act on that attraction by advocating child abuse. I lead a child protection organization (it's not notable enough to be listed in Wikipedia yet), and the current state of the art in our field acknowledges that there are pedophiles who actually are just as staunchly opposed to child abuse as anyone else, despite their own very unfortunate sexual interest. (Cantor, James & McPhail, Ian. (2016). Non-Offending Pedophiles. Current Sexual Health Reports. Online First. 10.1007/s11930-016-0076-z.) Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well, Qirtaiba (Jeremy Malcolm), some pedophiles define abuse in sketchy ways. Some think that child sexual abuse is not abuse if they are not physically forcing the child. And James Alexander didn't state that an editor simply being a pedophile is not enough to get the editor blocked by the WP:WMF, but it was the impression I got at the time, and he might have implied it. Our Wikipedia administrators will block someone openly stating that they are a pedophile here on Wikipedia. What need is there for the pedophile to state that here? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• If in practice, the Arbitration Committee no longer has jurisdiction over certain issues that this policy says it does have, then the policy should definitely be updated to reflect that change in practice. Mz7 (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I've enacted this change on the policy page. Worm^TT(talk) 10:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Given your changes, Worm That Turned, it's clear that we can still report such editors to administrators here (Roger Davies pretty much stated so as well above). I noted to James Alexander that this is what I will likely be doing, since our administrators are more likely to block an editor simply because he's a pedophile or advocates child sexual abuse and/or statutory rape. Per above, my report to the WP:WMF did not go as smoothly as my reports to WP:ArbCom on this matter. That stated, if it's a case like the Tisane cases, including the recent ones (yes, we still get editors like this openly advocating child sexual abuse), WP:WMF will not hesitate to act on that. For me to not want a pedophile editor blocked, the editor would have to be like Virtuous Pedophiles editors; I mean the Wikipedia editors who have been open about being pedophiles but note that they fight against their child sexual abuse urges and believe that child sexual abuse is wrong. Even if they are lying, it's not a problem for this site if they don't openly express pro-child sexual abuse views or engage in pro-child sexual abuse editing, and so on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Jamesofur, James Alexander's main account, to make sure he gets this message. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Since we have removed Arbcom's e-mail, is there a way we can in this policy tell people how to find admin(s) and thier e-mail(s) and/or is there a general inbox admin e-mail account that they can report to? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Counseling younger editors

One thing I think happens semi-frequently is when a younger contributor posts personal information, such as their age. In 2006, Arbcom held:

3) 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.

— Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy#Counseling

Perhaps something related to this should be added to the policy? Most important is the bit about deletion and oversight being used to remove the information. Mz7 (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Disclosing as a minor, but no identifying information

In a recent series of MfD nominations of userboxes, User:Proud User is asserting that this policy prohibits editors self-identifying as children. Is there any truth to that? Indeed, does any policy page even advise against disclosing that you are a child?

Personally, I think the concern if wrong. Children are protected in communities where they are widely observed to be children. Non-disclosure of being a child means that children will be wandering around the project hiding the fact that they are children. Now children are pretty easily identified as children when you choose to pay attention. Predators will find them, but non-disclosure means that observers will be slower to twig ti the fact that one of the parties is a child, and the other is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing about that on this page or the privacy policy page. The only thing the Terms of Use mention is "Soliciting personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18 for an illegal purpose or violating any applicable law regarding the health or well-being of minors." I cannot construe that to mean you cannot out yourself as a minor. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Past discussions have held that there is no outright ban on users revealing their age if they are children (eg under 18 years old).[1] What is more of a problem is personally identifiable information. It is important to bear in mind that On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, so even if someone claims to be an adult or a child, there is no guarantee that they are, and that Wikipedia does not have the ability to research this type of claim.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:Guidance for younger editors addresses what the concerns are. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Any time it's been discovered by a concerned editor and/or enough other editors that a minor revealed personally identifiable information about his or herself on their user page, talk page or elsewhere, it's been WP:Oversighted by an admin. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Policy questions

I have two questions regarding this policy. Firstly, does this policy also encompass inappropriate adult-child relationships of a non-sexual nature? For example, adult-on-child/teen bullying, neglect, physical abuse and psychological abuse. Would using Wikipedia to facilitate or pursue such relationships, or advocating such relationships (ex. by posting "These children deserve to be bullied and beaten silly") also result in an indefinite block?

Secondly, as many are already aware, there exist pedophiles (such as the group Virtuous Pedophiles) who do not act on their desires thereby acknowledging that adult-prepubescent child relationships of a sexual nature psychologically damage children. Would such people still be indefinitely blocked from this site?

Thanks in advance.104.157.196.27 (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. Anyone not contributing towards that might be blocked if what they were doing instead was unhelpful. The alternatives you mentioned have nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia, and no page on Wikipedia should be used for a hypothetical discussion with no plausible benefit to the encyclopedia. If someone thinks this section should be removed, I agree and please delete my comment too. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think the question is OK. Anyone advocating, including publicising, a philosophy not supporting the project runs afoul of WP:NOTADVOCACY. While innocuous silly expression is ignored or tolerated, anything unpalatable can result in deleting, blocking and banning. I note that pseudo-encyclopaedic notes (links and thumb image display) of WikiMedia Commons images of erotica were once tolerated but are now snow deleted. Anything that came close to apology for unacceptable behaviours, such as the IP alludes to, I have no doubt will not be tolerated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM also applies here. Putting forward an argument designed to improve a specific article is OK, but general discussions about the subject matter are not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the policy is perfectly clear. Direct protection is covered by the WMF, please contact by email them with any questions. Advocacy will not be tolerated and can be handled by any admin, I'm willing to be contacted by email if anyone has concerns. Worm^TT(talk) 10:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is there only this exception from "Off-wiki issues" norm? I mean there are many appalling people like terrorist and ISIS sympathizers, and many things that is considered inappropriate in civilized society, and dangerous, including for children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biaswatch (talk • contribs) 11:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC) This user has been indef blocked as WP:NOTHERE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It's unusual for people to turn up at Wikipedia saying that they support ISIS. However, in the past people have turned up and launched into long discussions about why they believe pedophilia should be legal. This is against WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NOTFREESPEECH and the policy here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

What if

What if a user was a child, (although acting just like a normal new editor would) hiding the fact that the said child was a child? Would that be OK, or no? GermanGamer77 21:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Wikipedia has neither the resources nor the legal powers to check whether a user is as old as they say they are. If a user says that they are under 18, they would be discouraged from giving out an excessive amount of personal information. Children should read WP:YOUNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Confused about policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This mention penalising those who self-identity as paedophiles, and I don't follow why. Not to sound like a paedophile or a paedophile defender, but isn't that blatant sexuality/disability based discrimination? It seems irrelevant and unrelated; Wikipedia articles should be neutral, so assuming they are written as such, why do personal matters like that play a factor? Paedophilia (an attraction) and child sexualisation (an action) aren't always two sides of the same coin, just like homosexuality and sodomy. Wouldn't chastising them violate the "personal attack" part of the guidelines anyhow? Please explain. Argentum Kurodil (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Because we used to not have this policy and it was a disaster. Pedophile editors kept tampering with articles to try and spread propaganda in the direct service of their appetites, and repeatedly violated policy or use policy as a bludgeon by invoking the letter rather than the spirit. It should be noted that generally only the predatory/delusional type of pedophile tends to be the type that self-identifies or tampers with articles; the type with insight into their impulses won't do either.Legitimus (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

As stated above, it is a WP:NOTFREESPEECH issue. At one stage there was a lot of time wasting by editors who tried to edit articles and hijack talk pages to fit their agenda.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Right, that kind of makes sense. But surely that would be covered under "promoting adult/child relationships", an issue which is independent of paedophilia (in some cases anyway); some paedophiles actually disagree with that doctrine - the famous example is Todd Nickerson. And if it's a vandalising edit, even in talk pages, then naturally it should be removed due to it being biased and/or irrelevant. Those folk should be dealt with on the grounds of vandalism, no? Argentum Kurodil (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You might not be reading the mood of the discussion or the implications of Wikipedia:Child protection. This is not the right website to chat about whether this policy or its origins make sense. Discussions at Wikipedia must focus on improving the encyclopedia. Replying further would not be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A policy talk page is "not the place to talk about [the policy]"?? That's totally and completely absurd. It almost seems like you're implying that discussion/criticism of the policy is in itself a violation of the policy -- which legitimises the concerns that the OP and many others have had. Creating a platform for witch hunts/McCartheism on wiki. Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that discussing whether the policy makes sense counts as focusing on improving the encyclopedia—an encyclopedia with policies that don't make sense is necessarily flawed. And the last sentence of your reply comes across like you're trying to shut down a legitimate discussion. Hppavilion1 (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.