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

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
 * Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 0 Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a soap opera
1) Reasonable measures which forestall the drama associated with interactions between naive children, predatory pedophiles, and sting operations by law enforcement are appropriate.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Ban for disruption
2) Users who seriously disrupt Wikipedia may be banned. In the context of this case, 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.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Consequences of absence of policy
3) If there is no specific policy which addresses a problem, it is handled on a case by case basis.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Editing by children
4) Users, including children, are permitted to edit anonymously without submitting identifying information.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Reasonable efforts to protect privacy of children
5) Reasonable efforts to discourage children from disclosing identifying personal information are appropriate.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy
1) Protecting children's privacy is an attempt to adopt the principles of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act to the particular circumstances of Wikipedia.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Current practice
2) When a user self-identifies as a child, especially if they provide personal information, the matter is frequently a subject of discussion among administrators, Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children%27s_privacy/Evidence. Sometimes the user is immature and ends up being blocked for disruption. If they are not disruptive, personal information may be removed and the user counseled.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Failure to achieve consensus
3) Protecting children's privacy and alternative policies addressing the same matters have failed to achieve consensus.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Self-identified children
4) Self-identified children may be children, adult predators, trolls, adult privacy-watchers testing our policies, or law enforcement personnel.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Continued work needed
1) The community is encouraged to continue working to achieve an acceptable formulation of Protecting children's privacy, or an alternative, which addresses problems presented by disruptive users, while avoiding the creation of a hostile atmosphere for children who are editing in good faith.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Ban for disruption
2) 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.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Counseling
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.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Implementation notes
''Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.''


 * With a majority of 5 in this case, all principles, findings and remedies pass. Thatcher131 03:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.


 * move to close ➥the Epopt 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Close Fred Bauder 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Charles Matthews 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Jayjg (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. - SimonP 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)