Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editors are not to invoke WP:CHILD until the case is finished
1) Editors should not invoke WP:CHILD until this case is finished.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Users are expected to take effective action to deal with any situation which presents itself. Fred Bauder 22:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure it's ok to comment here but honestly, I don't think I know what that last sentence means. Pascal.Tesson 23:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's OK to reply here. Look at it like this. Someone pukes on the supermarket floor... Who's got a mop? Fred Bauder 01:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred - Agreed, but the debate is on whether this kind of action is in fact effective. ( Radiant ) 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, answer this question: What is the bad thing we wish to avoid? Fred Bauder 01:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for others, but the bad thing I wish to avoid is blocking users that have not doing anything wrong. Hence, I object to preemptive blocking of children's accounts. I think it's a good idea to tell people (regardless of age) the perils of posting personal information, but not to block them if they choose to ignore this peril. ( Radiant ) 14:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * See here for an example of the policy being invoked on the Administrators' noticeboard, with an important point about the non-desirability of publicising oversight-sensitive information like this - something I would urge the ArbCom to also consider. Carcharoth 05:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How about "Editors should not invoke WP:CHILD until there is consensus to make it a policy or guideline"? Kaldari 05:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer Editors should not invoke WP:CHILD unless and until there is consensus to make it a policy or guideline", as it gaining consensus as a policy is not a foregone conclusion. Thryduulf 22:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is this one section turning into a recap of all the arguments pro and con? Why can't we discuss the substantive issue in the proper place?


 * All I want to know is what this injunction means. "Invoke"? Can't cite it as policy? Can't cite it when blocking? Can't cite it when editing in (somenamespace)? Can't cite it at all? Can't point to it to uphold an argument on talk? Can't point to it to describe a position taken on talk? Can't link to it anywhere? Can't talk about it anywhere? Can't do anything indicated by some interpretation of it without citing it? Does this include variants and alternative versions?


 * I think this injunction is intended to maintain the status quo but what was that? John Reid ° 03:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I take this to mean that "editors must not treat WP:CHILD as a policy" and therefore should not cite it as justification for any actions, from Template:Proposed "References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"." The status quo is that Wikipedia does not have any policy called WP:CHILD. Whether it is a proposal under discussion or a rejected proposal makes no difference to this injunction. Thryduulf 08:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is what I meant. Really, if the correct tag is on there (one of the points in dispute), then editors should know better than to refer to this as if it was a policy or accepted guideline. I have no problem with people carrying out the removal of information like they did before WP:CHILD was written, and I'd personally encourage that. Just don't point at WP:CHILD, as that will lead other editors to, incorrectly, start 'using' the disputed policy. I was, though, hoping that this proposal would be taken up by the arbitrators and passed through (or rejected) quickly. The whole point of an injunction is that it is either rejected or put in place quickly. There is little point in have a place to propose temporary injunctions if they take as long as the rest of the case to be resolved. Carcharoth 10:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I have seen administrators refer on AN/I to their removal of personal information by self-described minors without mentioning WP:CHILD or any version or derivative of it, or any policy, guideline etc. at all, for that matter.  As mentioned below, I saw this occur prior to WP:CHILD even existing, though it would be difficult to find a diff to prove it.  I can only conclude that these admins see the disclosure of such information as "disruptive", at least under certain circumstances, and admins already know how to block for "disruption" without any additional policy tools.  But as Fred said on the Evidence/Talk page, we need need a policy, not a catch as catch can response.  There ought to be a system that avoids what Carcharoth is talking about on that page, where an admin announces to the world that there is personally identifying info for an underage user at a particular place on WP, before steps have been taken to remove that info from the edit history (i.e. oversight.)  6SJ7 22:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, IMHO, we need a guideline that recommends what should be done in certain situation, but is flexible enough to allow different approaches as the specifics of the case demands. There is also no need to be legalistic, or block-happy about it. Thryduulf 23:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, I'm having a common-sense attack. What the heck is wrong with knowing how to find a minor in real life? I know how to find dozens if not hundreds of minors, and that's not even using the computer let alone Wikipedia. Is someone going to sue a municipal government that is responsible for the street a predator found a child on? Maybe I'm losing perspective on this...  Big Nate 37 (T) 23:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is that the Internet is less regulated than the real world (or meatspace, as some call it), and that practices like 'grooming' are easier on the Internet than in the real world. It's also a question of scale. Personally identifiable information on the internet is available to millions of people, if they know where to look. There are also tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of children out there, as opposed to the "dozens if not hundreds" you were talking about. If you are not sure about something, think about what you would do if it was your information that appeared on a Wikipedia page. You might advertise your name and address on a street in your local area, but that is very different from posting the name and address on the Internet. Having said that, you have a good point about whether or not it is really our problem. That is the crux of the issue here - identifying what Wikipedia is responsible for (if anything), and devising a way to implement it. Carcharoth 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * IMHO what Wikipedia is responsible for is letting parents know that the supervision and protection of their children is their responsibility. Thryduulf 08:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And if we find problems, then we should deal with them, but not to get overly involved. Have a policy or guideline in place, but don't divert too many resources to deal with what is at the end of the day the responsibility of the users (adults) and the parents of the users (in the case of children). Keep the atmosphere around here nice and civil, and make clear what is and is not acceptable. That is all we can really do, unless a real problem is brought to our attention. Carcharoth 10:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Policy proposals
1) A good policy proposal should have three qualities. (1) A description of a real and present problem, as opposed to a hypothetical one; (2) A plausible way of solving this problem; and (3) a lack of undesirable side-effects.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Any policy proposal made in good faith is worth of consideration. Fred Bauder 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. &gt;Radi a n t &lt;  08:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I intend to write an essay/proposed guideline (I haven't decided which yet) about this. 08:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Opposed as stated. While most policy proposals probably satisfy these criteria, I believe that they are too limiting to be applied on a uniform basis.  On (1), there is nothing wrong with being "proactive" and preventing problems before they arise, or from dealing with situations, the existence of which is difficult to prove but the consequences of which would be very serious.  As for (2), I would add after "solving," the words "or reducing."  Or if you wish, alleviating, ameliorating, or some other word to indicate that a policy is acceptable even if it does not completely solve a problem, as long as it makes the situation better.  On (3), I would say that it should be a lack of undesirable side-effects that outweigh the benefits of the proposal.  Just because there are side-effects doesn't mean the policy shouldn't be adopted, if the side-effects are less serious than the issue being addressed.  6SJ7 10:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the reasons so well stated by 6SJ7. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose since wording is clearly chosen to portray the proposed WP:CHILD as a bad policy proposal. Of course, I would tend to agree that WP:CHILD is a pretty bad proposal and that it suffers from problems 1-2-3, but that's just not the kind of statement which will bring peace. Moreover, I'd be very uncomfortable with the idea of Arbcom telling the community what a good policy proposal is. Pascal.Tesson 05:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, arb-com shouldn't pronounce on what makes a good policy or guideline. Hiding Talk 13:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Making proposals
2) The way to reach consensus on a proposal is to open it to debate, and to reword it based upon objections. Refusing to compromise will not help forming consensus; however, consensus does not equate to unanimity.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Rewording may be inappropriate, depending on the objections raised. Fred Bauder 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. &gt;Radi a n t &lt;  08:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Good policy develops by being reworked to take account of objections, not by ignoring them. Thryduulf 08:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I also support the principle that kittens and puppies are cute. Obviously the ArbCom is going going to accept this, duh. Now that we've got that out of the way, let me point out the subtext, which is that this proposed principle is for Radiant to get in another nasty dig at the scores of good-faith editors who worked and commented on the proposal. Radiant's first contribution to the discussion was "I object to this proposal on the following grounds..." followed by five objections, which accepting would have meant abandoning the proposal altogether. This is fine, obviously anyone can object to a proposal of course, and if enough people object it gets quashed, but how can you "reword it based on upon objections" when the objection is the very existance of the policy? After another comment in this vein, Radiant's third comment, made the next day (the 15th day of the proposal's existance), was "I think it is obvious from this talk page that there is no consensual support for this page. Hence, ((rejected)) would be appropriate...". This was followed some days later by his first edit to the actual article, which was to slap a Rejected tag on it. Er, how is one supposed to "reword" a proposal based on that kind of "objection"? If the ArbCom has wisdom on this matter I'd be most interested to hear it. Obviously, again, I'm not objecting to an editor's right to oppose a proposal altogether. I'm objecting to his right to characterize refusal to utterly abandon a proposal basically on one or two editors's say-so as "refusing to compromise". This proposed principle is obviously self-evident and its only purpose is to strike a holier-than-thou stance which is truly unjustified. That sort of attitude has not proven conducive to reasoned discussion. Herostratus 06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I can only agree there. Given a large enough number of people you will always get those on the fringe which will disagree to any compromise the wide majority would agree to. Still, to declare consensus it is not enough to state PERCENT agree, so it is consensus. Rather the issues of all involved must be adressed in the compromise. CharonX /talk 12:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support without a doubt. Pascal.Tesson 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose in the current form. It must be possible to kill a bad proposal, not to reword it over and over again. And a proposal that is watered down to much just leads to regulation creep without giving substantial benefits. --Stephan Schulz 13:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Per WP:POL, "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present.... Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments." How I read this is that rewording for rewording's sake will (or at least should) not keep a policy from being rejected.  Big Nate 37 (T) 14:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My problem with the proposed text (possibly not the intention underlying it) is that it leaves no way to kill a proposal. Assume someone proposes "To support the war on terror, all contributions need to be checked by the Department of Homeland Security". No amount of rewording will make this acceptable (to me), and I see no way to a useful compromise. It cannot be policy to impose (or even urge) compromise with arbitrarily bad proposals. --Stephan Schulz 15:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this also overlooks that sometimes, a poll may be necessary. Yes, we try to avoid them, but sometimes they can be used, if both sides agree, to solve deadlocks and also to break new ground. Hiding Talk 17:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Voting is discouraged
3) Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, voting is discouraged as a mechanism for consensus building. Discussion and compromise are the preferred methods. Because a vote tends to represent issues as binary, discourage discussion and preclude compromise, it is not generally useful to poll or vote on proposals. See also the long-standing pages Polling is evil and Don't_vote_on_everything.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Polls may be useful in appropriate circumstances. Fred Bauder 23:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. This old practice seems relevant to mention. &gt;Radi a n t &lt;  08:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are other reasons for discouraging a show of hands. Some of these are bad reasons. For instance, discouraging a show of hands to avoid making manifest that one's position represents a distinct minority. For this reason and others, 'discouraged' should not be taken to mean 'prevented by all possible means'. Herostratus 16:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support proposal, and "'discouraged' should not be taken to mean 'prevented by all possible means'". However voting should not be used to prevent discussion and by doing so prevent attempts to reach consensus. What is important is why the minority hold their view, not that they are a minority. For example in an AfD debate, if one group want to keep an article because they like the subject and another group want to delete because it is unverifiable, it doesn't matter which group are the minority. Thryduulf 09:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is one of those unique situations where conducting a poll would have actually been useful since most of the bickering was not about the proposal itself but whether or not there was concensus or potential for concensus. One side stated that the proposal was dead and did not have any chance of achieving consensus. The other side stated that the proposal either did have consensus or still had potential for achieving consensus. A poll could have easily resolved this question and would not have precluded discussion since discussion of the policy itself had largely run its course. Kaldari 20:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. A poll to test consensus isn't in and of itself evil, but it polarises a debate. Who's to say how many viewpoints there are and exactly what they are? Sure, we could have a make-your-own category poll, some people laying out their viewpoint and others commenting on them, but that's what a discussion is. If there is one poll choice that's pro-proposal, but six choices that involve changing it, that spreads out the vote—not to mention the potential for bickering about an unfair poll after one side loses. Being in the discussion I can easily recall four distinct ideas on what the proposal should become, and that's without going through the page history. Polls are too easily manipulated, the big problem with a poll is someone has to organise it and one person is not guaranteed to be impartial.  Big Nate 37 (T) 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Opposed. I believe polling can be useful under appropriate circumstances.  I don't think the current process of policy consideration by edit-warring (or at least skirmishing) and aimless discussion is working.  It certainly didn't work for this proposal.  6SJ7 10:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Mild support. Voting tends to make people forget that the motivations of voters are important. In this particular case, the vote was specifically interpreted to dismiss the concerns voiced about the proposal as coming from a marginal band of dissenters. Pascal.Tesson 04:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal rejection
4) A proposal is rejected if, after some discussion, there is no consensus for it. There does not have to be "consensus to reject" a proposal; if there is no consensus either way, the proposal has still failed. The tag rejected is used to indicate this fact; that tag does not in any way prohibit people from discussing the matter further.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * A bit hasty Fred Bauder 23:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Taken from WP:POL with slight expansion. <font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt;  08:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorse. If I have anything to say here at all, this is it. A policy proposal is not binary; it does not create two poles, one of which must be the outcome. Rather, it sets up a locus of discussion, around which consensus may or may not condense. If consensus does condense, the guideline tag is appropriate; some higher bar must be passed in order for policy to replace it -- length of time, stability of page, lack of meaningful opposition.


 * The rejected tag is probably a mistake, as is the underlying manner in which we speak of a proposal that's not going anywhere. Unless consensus does gather around an opposing proposal, it's probably misleading to say the community has rejected the first one; it might be better to label it stalled or inactive. Terms such as rejected, failed, defeated, or historical may be seen as attempts to close the book on a proposal, which is usually wrong absent that opposing consensus. It's more appropriate to say that a proposal has so far failed, leaving the door open to revision and improvement.


 * Not to muddy the waters here: I do endorse at least the first two sentences of this item, and the third with a quibble. John Reid 11:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this. "Inactive" and "historical" wouldn't have been apropriate here, as there was activity but not productive activity. "Failed" would be apropriate, if it included something along the lines of "If you are interested in reviving this topic, consider making significant changes to overcome the objections raised on the talk page." Thryduulf 09:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is taken right from policy, I fail to see why so many would oppose it. If its the connotation to the word "rejected", shouldn't we just change the rejected template to be in accordance with policy rather than the other way around?  Big Nate 37 (T) 14:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh wait a sec. "The tag rejected... does not in any way prohibit people from discussing the matter further." Um. First of all, I don't think people are gonna spend a lot of time discussing a proposal that has been rejected, granted that they are not actually physically prevented from doing so. Second of all, combining that statement with "A proposal is rejected if, after some discussion, there is no consensus for it."'... if you're saying that following preliminary discussions a proposal might be tagged as Rejected with the expectation that further discussion will continue and perhaps result in the removal of the Rejected tag, with the proposal perhaps moving in and out of the rejected state as the discussion evolves... that would be novel. I can't agree that that's the way to go, at all, no. That would explain things a bit though. Herostratus 07:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Opposed. First of all, I believe that if there is going to be a "rejected" tag placed on a proposal, it should be done with the same formality and safeguards as other processes that require a non-involved administrator, or perhaps even a bureaucrat, to make that determination.  Second of all, I do not see what the big hurry is to slap a "rejected" label on something, unless of course you oppose the proposal and are trying to stifly discussion.  I believe "accept" or "reject" should stand on an equal, or almost, equal footing, so that if a "consensus" is required for "accept", at least a supermajority should be required for "reject."  Otherwise the discussion can go on.  As I have seen others say in other contexts, Wikipedia has the hard drive space.  6SJ7 10:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A completely un-wiki, bureaucratic, vote-counting way to handle it. If consensus is there, fine.  If consensus isn't there, it's rejected.  I also oppose banning non-admins from handling a routine duty- if it's truly done in bad faith, it'll be reverted, otherwise it should be discussed.  Ral315 (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it "un-wiki" to permit discussion to go on, without the distraction of a sign that says "rejected", unless the "community" has affirmatively rejected it. What part of the wiki philosophy requires that proposals be rejected by default?  6SJ7 12:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6SJ7, you are hung up on wording. Read the rejected tag and WP:POL The comments above treat this nicely. Note that Template:Rejected isn't protected, so if it needs to be revised to be in accordance with policy, feel free. It may be best to rename it, but for this discussion that's what we have and more than a couple users understand how it is to be used according to policy.  Big Nate 37 (T) 16:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a pretty nasty and rude response. 6SJ7 04:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Isn't that the fundamental way in which all policies were built? If a policy is not gathering overwhelming support and is still being argued against strongly by serious editors with precise concerns then it is not made policy. If the discussions stall and the policy is not evolving towards something acceptable to all parties then the policy has failed and the best idea is probably to start from scratch and build incrementally from basic agreements on what problems the policy should adress and what solutions it should propose. Pascal.Tesson 04:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sums it up well enough. Hiding Talk 11:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the "hang-up" by the opposes is the application of the word "rejected". Semantically, "rejected" would seem to be a rather divisive term, and would seem to be contrary to Consensus can change. We don't use that word in XfD, we use "no consensus". If the name of the template, and the wording within substituted the words "no consensus" for the word "rejected", I might guess that most of the opposes would change to support. - jc37 09:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Haste
5) Editors should not be over-hasty in tagging a proposal as Rejected. There's no hurry. Editors should avoid placing a Rejected tag on proposals where there is a significant ongoing discussion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Right Fred Bauder 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Herostratus 16:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I object to this, see 5.1 below. Thryduulf 09:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support for the reasons stated in number 4. 6SJ7 11:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

5.1) Editors should not be overly hasty in tagging a proposal as Rejected. Editors should avoid placing a Rejected tag on proposals where there is significant ongoing productive discussion about the proposal. If there is discussion that does not appear productive, or only discussion not about the proposal, then it will usually be best to propose tagging it on the talk page.

Editors are reminded that edit warring is bad, and if they object to a proposal being tagged as rejected, they should discuss their objections on the talk page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Thryduulf 09:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support this two-way version: If a tagged-as-rejected proposal isn't truely dead then the discussion about the tag will move fast and it's not going to hurt to have a rejected tag while it's being talked about. Noboby that's already active in the discussion is going to leave upon seeing a rejected tag. In a proposal that's got some life to it, this will happen so fast it has little chance to discourage newcomers to the discussion. The flip side is that if the opposition to the rejected tag can show by WP:POL why it's not rejected yet, there should be no reverting the removal of the tag.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Non-productive" is too easily interpreted as "not tending in the direction I personally would prefer". Premature placing of a Rejected (or Accepted) tag turns the discussion away from the proposal and toward arguing about the tag. Re "Noboby that's already active in the discussion is going to leave upon seeing a rejected tag" - debatable, and what about people coming new to the discussion? A big stop sign to them, in my view. Herostratus 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, my response to that is right after the text of mine that you quoted. I can't see how else to explain why a rejected tag doesn't mean instant proposal death, so I suppose we're just going to have to disagree on this one.  Big Nate 37 (T) 22:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Opposed, as I believe Herostratus's statement is better. Who is deciding what is "productive" discussion?  In this case, it was some of the people who opposed the policy anyway, so of course they didn't think the discussion was productive.  As for the statement that "edit warring is bad," it is indeed bad, but it is just as bad on the part of those who favor tagging a proposal as rejected, as it is on the part of those who oppose the tag.  6SJ7 11:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason I felt the the discussion was unproductive was that it wasn't addressing the reasons why I and others were opposed to it. There was no attempt by Herostratus to explain why he disagreed with the opinions of others, or to answer any of the questions asked. If you read the section of the talk page that led to the rejected tag being applied for the second time, you will find a consensus that it was going nowhere. Thryduulf 18:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Least destructive state
6) In the event of a disagreement or edit war tags on a proposal, if protection is requested, proposals should be protected in the least destructive state. In the event of an disagreement over whether a proposal is Rejected or still Proposed, Proposed is the least destructive state.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Herostratus 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is passed, it should be done with an ammendment such that it does not imply justification for wheel warring or acting in a conflict of interest with regard to use of a sysop bit.  Big Nate 37 (T) 02:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC) (edited 19:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC))


 * Oppose per Ral315. John Reid 05:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Wrong Version and to minimize wheel warring. Kaldari 06:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A tag is not a "destructive state". <font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt;  12:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead of "least destructive state" it should be "least destroyed state." I know some people have argued that a "Rejected" tag does not stifle discussion, but this seems highly illogical and unlikely.  If there are examples of policies continuing to have a thriving discussion after they were tagged "Rejected," I would like to see them.  6SJ7 19:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CHILD is pretty strong evidence that editors won't just see a rejected tag and instantly give up on the proposal. Ask yourself, if a policy you were discussing had a rejected tag placed on it would you take it at face value without checking the talk page? What I would like to see if I were to support this is an example of a proposal that had thriving discussion right up to having a rejected tag placed on it, and then being forsaken. Until then, I'm in opposition to it.  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Utterly oppose any principle that says that one tag is always better than the other. See The Wrong Version; does it really matter if it says it's rejected for a short while?  Ral315 (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose this proposal, I agree completely with Ral315 and BigNate37's comments. Thryduulf 09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons stated under number 4. 6SJ7 11:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. If there is a significant argument about whether something is 'rejected' or 'ongoing' then surely it has failed to achieve consensus and is therefore 'rejected' as a result? Cynical 13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can only agree with Cynical - if somebody says "there is consensus" and about half of the people disagree it cannot be consensus. Charon<font color="Black">X /talk 12:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see ArbCom endorsing this, per Ral315's comments. Stifle (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, would require admins to play judge in an open conflict. Agree with Ral315.--Stephan Schulz 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Role of Arbitration Committee
7) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to impose new Wikipedia policy, however the Arbitration Committee may rule on the status of a particular proposal, as it may rule on any other dispute on Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support, very sensible. Thryduulf 01:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support, I wouldn't want this to be used as a rationale for more civil proposal discussions to end up asking the comittee to rule on consensus. This is here in part because of the dispute, hostility, back-and-forth bickering and edit/wheel-warring.  Big Nate 37 (T) 05:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I doubt the ArbCom really wants the role of mediating "any dispute". Addressing editor behavior and clarifying policies should be sufficient. Kaldari 20:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Seems to clarify one of the problems people have with this case even existing. Cynical 13:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you meant "conduct dispute". — freak([ talk])</tt> 10:28, Oct. 30, 2006 (UTC)


 * Whack with an axe. This is the camel's nose. If we permit this, we invite ArbCom to decide everything -- and very soon, every dispute will wind up here. We do not need to give ArbCom absolute power. ArbCom must be limited to issues involving the conduct of editors -- editors who then go about their business, which is in part to create policy. John Reid 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, don't buy that concern. I think the issue is that arb-com are being asked to look at the behaviour of people edit warring on the page in question over what tag to add to the page.  At some point in determining that they have to work out whether a consensus had established or not.  Given that we only create policy where consensus exists, and a lack of a consensus is all that is needed to determine something as rejected, then it follows that arb-com do have the power to judge if someone is pushing a POV when tagging something either as rejected or as policy/guidance.  There's no camels nose here, and power is still in our hands.  I mean, blimey, we can sack the whole arb-com if we really want, by the simple measure of not bringing any cases to them. Power rests everywhere, and is best wielded only when needed.  I think the powers suggested here may well be needed in this case, and I don't see that as a power grab.  Wikipedia is not a formal entity with a constitution or rigid power structure.  Wikipedia operates on shifting sand and plays loose and fast with any notions of a solidified ruleset as needs must.  Hiding Talk 20:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If editors have tag-warred on this page, admins should block them. If admins have tag-warred on this page, ArbCom quite properly investigates this and sanctions involved parties. It does not dictate the status of the proposal. That is the line we are crossing here. John Reid 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I say, and Pascal notes below, in this circumstance it may be necessary. But there could certainly be a tweak, so I'll have a go at 7.1 below. And in tweaking, I found you could well be right John, have a look, and note I personally don't like this but prefer my suggestion below. Hiding Talk 13:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak support, per the commonly accepted principle of Judicial review, which hasn't made courts dictatorial where it has been used. Unfortunately, we don't have any standards for making guidelines and policies. This, at least, would be better than nothing. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here in the US, the Supreme Court has been legislating from the bench for my entire lifetime. Some of this new law has been good law; some has been bad law. None of it has been our law. John Reid 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Whereas here in the UK the courts have been legislating from the bench for several lifetimes and have in the process effectively struck down some egregiously bad law. None of which has any bearing on this case - Wikipedia process is not a microcosm of American politics.  ArbCom might in some cases find as fact that a certain policy or guideline has consensus support, if that is unambiguous, but in this case I see no justification for doing so, and plenty of reason for not, so the question in my view reverts to user conduct. Guy 20:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Definite support for the first half of the sentence. Oppose the second half, which I think is dangerous. I have already explained my point to John Reid at the village pump but let me make it clearer in light of the proposed sentence. I share John's concerns to a certain extent but I also believe that the deadlock on WP:CHILD is more about user conduct than it is about policy. It is also definitely a case where the debate has soured so badly that I don't mind having the ArbCom remind everyone to chill while they, as the name suggests, arbitrate. Having ArbCom decide the status of a proposed policy or guideline is not a welcome precedent and I don't like the idea of legitimizing it. In this very particular case, however, I don't think there are many productive alternatives. I'd like the second half of that sentence to reflect this notion of "exceptional circumstances".Pascal.Tesson 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Role of Arbitration Committee (2)
7.1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to impose new Wikipedia policy, however the Arbitration Committee may rule that a policy or proposal is disputed, as it may rule on any other dispute on Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Endorse with extreme caution. To the extent that this case involves user conduct it falls entirely within ArbCom ambit. ArbCom may resort to a number of methods to resolve disputes but cannot tread the ground of ruling on policy status. I will object to any attempt by ArbCom to apply a guideline or rejected tag to an ongoing discussion, however contentious. I accept that a rational, Realpolitik solution is for ArbCom to mandate the polarized proposal tag when editors find themselves unable to make the effort. This will have to be a remedy with an expiration date. John Reid 03:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed, since this is the nub of it, and let's not forget, this appears to be a dispute over whether to tag something as policy/guideline or rejected. We should also remember that we have a disputedpolicy tag, and it shouldn't be arb-com's place to set out whether a policy is rejected or accepted, that's something that only the community can do through discussion.  However, arb-com can decide people are in dispute with each other, and where that dispute affects on centres around a policy page or proposal, it can rule that such a dispute places the page itself at the centre of the dispute.  Therefore, it can declare such a page disputed. Hiding Talk 13:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has value in the specific instance where a proposal has no realistic chance of achieving consensus, where progress towards consensus is stalled due to irredeemable polarisation, where there is no overriding foundation principle, and where continued dispute is disrupting the project. In those specific circumstances, it is reasonable for ArbCom, as an arbiter of user conduct, to step in and impose closure of an unproductive discussion.  Provided, of course, that it is found as fact that said discussion is unproductive.  Guy 20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Community and arbcom are not empowered to make legal decisions
8) Although the community is broadly empowered to make policy decisions for Wikipedia, this empowerment does not extend toward handling percieved legal problems facing Wikipedia, except insofar as it has been explicitly empowered by the Wikimedia Foundation. Similarly, the arbcom, which exists to interpret, not create, policy, is not in a place to judge real-world legal issues.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Arbitration_policy provides that "Sensible "real world" laws" may be considered in deciding cases. Fred Bauder 23:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose. We have all the responsibility that there is, for everything we do here; nothing is done without us. Foundation and Board are not distinct, separate powers; they are empowered by the community to carry out certain tasks. Legal matters are indeed best handled by Board Legal; that's what we pay the man to do. When you pay a professional to do a job, it's usually best to let him do it. But just as we pay firemen to come when our homes burn, there is nothing to stop us from grabbing our children out of the flames ourselves. John Reid 19:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess. But what does this have to do with the price of eggs? The proposed policy has little or nothing to do with legal issues. The COPPA law doesn't apply to Wikipedia, and few if any editors have maintained that it does. So I'm not getting why this belongs here. (But FWIW I would point out the Wikipedia community contains hella more legal brainpower than the Foundation will ever be able to afford to buy - but then, isn't that the rationale (applied to all other areas of expertise also) for this being a wiki in the first place?) Herostratus 07:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Important principle. Phil Sandifer 05:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first sentence and partially agree with the second. However, both are irrelevant to this case.  The policy proposal is not a legal issue.  Admittedly, the way it was written (not by me), it might seem that way.  I have written a new version that does not raise legal issues, just issues as to how Wikipedia should operate.  See WP:YOUTH.  Some have ridiculed my version as being the same thing dressed up in non-legal clothes, which I don't think it is.  Most people have just ignored it.  Originally I was going to replace the version at WP:CHILD with my version, but I thought that might just confuse matters more, and possibly cause some disruption with this arbitration.  I would have been curious to see what would have happened if my version had been posted first; I realize a lot of the same people would have been opposed to it, but some might not have.  6SJ7 05:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. If the community chooses to make a policy citing legal concerns, but the policy is not mandated by Foundation, then there is still no reason in principle why the community should not make that policy.  If we wanted to mandate, for example, that users should not incite racial hatred, then we could surely do so (maybe we already have and I have not noticed).  The problem here is that certain users have taken it as a point of principle that something must be done, for legal reasons, and Foundation has not (yet) ruled on that.  That is a rather different problem.  If in someone's judgement there is a legal issue to be faced, and the community, or a substantial minority within it, is unwilling to take it on (as appears to be the case here) then those concerned should take it to Foundation and ask for a legal opinion from Brad rather than trying to railroad the community (which is a user conduct issue, hence a fit matter for ArbCom).  And if Brad says there is no legal reason for the policy then we should treat it no differently form any other proposal which fails to gain consensus.  Guy 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tag warring is bad
9) Tag warring is edit warring over the appropriate tag to place on a page. In the case of a policy proposal, it is a war over the status of a proposal. Tag warring is not an appropriate way to discuss substantive issues.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Right, just edit warring Fred Bauder 23:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. John Reid 05:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Tag warring can basically hijack a proposal - the discussion turns away from substantive issues and becomes about the tag. But, generally, "warring" is (I think) considered to begin with the first revert. This is a problem. Per #7 above, the best way to avoid tag warring is to avoid changing the Proposed tag on a on proposal in the first place until it has definitely and clearly been either rejected (or just died out) or accepted. You see what I'm saying? For example, take WP:PROD. Suppose that, when PROD was being discussed, one or two editors had decided that it was silly and tagged it as Rejected. Removing the tag would be tag warring - but just leaving the tag would hardly have been fair to the proposal. So per #7 I think the onus is the person removing the Proposed tag (the same would apply to a premature tagging of a proposal as accepted policy). Herostratus 07:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The onus for what? Changing the tag from proposed to rejected isn't warring. Reversions make it a war. I laid out why rejected was appropriate in this case and that explanation was largely ignored until you moved it off the page; I don't see how you can be saying the onus for proof.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Definitely. Hiding Talk 11:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can only agree Charon<font color="Black">X /talk 02:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All warring is bad. It also takes two sides to make a war.  What is the difference between a bold action and starting a war?  Or reverting a bold action and starting a war?  Guy 20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It only takes one side to make a war. Check history, most wars are one side defending against an invasion by the other side. "This animal is very dangerous, it defends itself when attacked". Herostratus 05:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it does take two sides to make a war: Person A adds something to a page. Person B removes it. Person A then has a choice to restore their addition, or to leave things be. Both come with the option of discussion. If Person A does restore the addtion, then person B can choose to either remove it again or let things be, again with or without discussion. If it is removed, person A again can either add it once more or leave things as they are. At every stage, reverting is a deliberate, concious act. If one side does not want to war, then the other side cannot war without them. Thryduulf 17:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 23:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Thryduulf puts it nicely. Of course, his comment is compatible with this proposed finding depending on your definition of reasonable, and the fact that we're here is evidence that the community has failed to agree on what measures are reasonable and what measures actually forestall the aforementioned perils. Sure, I believe Fred's proposed finding is true however I'm skeptical that it will help us reach a solution to the issues with WP:CHILD.  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly object. The language of this statement is blatantly agist. Not only do I object, but I find it offensive. Kaldari 06:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? I don't understand the grazing cattle reference.  Big Nate 37 (T) 06:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Kaldari means Ageist, "Unfairly discriminatory against someone based on their age.", see also Ageism. Thryduulf 08:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I strongly object to the title of this principle and its formulation. What do soap operas have to do with the drama associated with pedophiles? Moreover, this is assuming that there is a danger of sting operations on Wikipedia by law enforcement on those grounds which is dubious at best. It's also assuming that predatory pedophiles roam Wikipedia and as many have pointed out, that's not supported by fact either. Pascal.Tesson 23:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gotta love this :-) Yes, Wikipedia is not a soap opera, and sometimes the curtain must be brought don on the low drama. Guy 23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The only way you would ever have proof that predators or law enforcement sting operations are active here is for something Very Bad to happen. Prudent proactive steps may be necessary to prevent Wikipedia from being the target of the next Dateline NBC investigation, for example. Thatcher131 03:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Prudent, proactive steps" are good when they solve more problems than they create and any collateral damge is small and absolutely necessary. Radiant!, myself and others expressed on several occasions doubts that the steps being proposed would actually solve the problem, and also opinions that the associated collateral damage would be worse than what was trying to be guarded against. These concerns were ignored. Thryduulf 17:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is: it would also be a prudent proactive step to keep garlic in my bedroom to avoid vampires. I don't because garlic stinks and although I have no proof that vampires don't exist, I'm willing to take that risk. All kidding aside, I really think this is the heart of the matter: many believe that there is no risk of any pedophile predators picking up kids on Wikipedia. We may one day be the target of the next Dateline NBC but most likely it will concern some Seigenthaler type of affair, not because of some creep chatting with underage kids. Pascal.Tesson 23:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I think Fred's reference to "drama" and "soap operas" are just his shorthand way of referring to situations that have occurred and/or could occur.  The point is that for a variety of reasons, Wikipedia should strive to minimize the chances that it will be used as a venue for the interactions in question.  6SJ7 02:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored
11) Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No, but we do avoid gross material, for example tubgirl has no place here, at least not in its full-blown form. Fred Bauder 01:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not here because there is no encylopaedic reason for it to be, not because its gross. If there was an encylopaedic reason for it to be here it would be, regardless of how gross or otherwise it is - cf Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg. Thryduulf 18:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Tangential, but we get at least one proposal per week to censor Wikipedia in some particular way to protect minors. ( Radiant ) 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but. The whole project is schizophrenic in that it is explicitly not censored for minors, yet minors are welcome and encouraged to participate, and this glaring dichotomy has never been addressed.
 * Herostratus, we welcome and encourage people to participate. Were we to avoid encouraging minors to participate we'd need to identify the age of editors. Now, there may be some on Wikipedia who specifically encourage minors to edit, but I don't think that is done by the community at large.  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because, with proper parental supervision it is not an issue. We are not in a position to act as parents, nor can or should we be. All we can do is explain that Wikipedia is not censored and that parents must therefore take parental responsiblity. Thryduulf 18:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Legal hazard
12) While the community may create policy based upon reasonable laws, the community should not assume that Wikipedia is in legal hazard or in danger of being sued. The Wikimedia Board employs a lawyer to inform us of such problems.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act applies only to websites which collect information from children. We do not do that. The question is whether we should attempt to address the problems addressed by the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act as they relate to the operation we have. Our lawyers are engaged in other things, they are not monitoring user pages or even proposed policies. The community is responsible for what happens regardless of whether we have any actionable legal liability. Fred Bauder 02:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * At least one person in the discussion contacted Brad, specifically to ask his opinion on this matter. The fact that it was brought to his attention, and he chose not to comment, was taken as indicating there was no urgent legal issue we needed to be aware of. Thryduulf 18:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. ( Radiant ) 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. This seems like common sense to me. Kaldari 06:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Righteous, Fred. Thatcher131 03:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fred. This can, however, be accomplished without beating people over the head with the statute itself, see the increasingly commented-upon (both positively and negatively) Youth policies.  6SJ7 22:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote preparation
13) If a vote is to be held on the official adoption of a policy proposal, agreement must first exist as to the duration of the vote, and in particular the percentage support required to pass.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No particular reason to do so, if it is just a straw poll testing the waters. Fred Bauder 02:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that Protecting children's privacy poll was not testing the waters, but stated its purpose to enact WP:CHILD as an official policy. ( Radiant ) 13:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Note that neither of the two votes opened on this proposal listed either a duration or a threshold. Arguably the second wasn't an offical adoption vote, but the first did state so. ( Radiant ) 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Consensus is not a number
14) Consensus is not defined in numerical terms. It is a non sequitur to claim that a proposal has consensual support for the reason that a specific percentage of the commenters support it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Right, consensus is the outcome of a community decision making process which takes all perspectives into account. Fred Bauder 02:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. ( Radiant ) 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Numbers are important for decisions not closed by individuals
15) When dealing with entities where a decision is required but that are not closed by an individual (as are XfD's and RfA's), and if no clear and obvious consensus for one decision can be achieved, raw numbers of supporters and objectors (after factoring for puppets and commentors of limited standing) must perforce take on considerable importance. This does not necessarily require a poll.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Herostratus 05:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. If there is no clear consensus, there is no clear consensus and things must procede accordingly (usually this means that the status quo prevails), because it is extremely unlikely that the situation will change. In cases where there is no clear consensus, but it is felt that reaching a consensus is important then then the reasons why there is no consensus should be looked at and changes made accordingly. Thryduulf 13:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Likewise object. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, simple majority cannot be a subsitute for consensus. ( Radiant ) 14:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Agreed. 6SJ7 02:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

High bar for policy acceptance
16) For proposed policies, the bar for acceptance - whatever method is used for determining this - should be set fairly high, since policies constrain the free operation of the wiki.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Granted, so vague as to be of little worth. When combined with the preceding proposed principle, I'm thinking along the lines of 75-80%, but I for assorted reasons don't want to put that in the body of the proposed principle. Herostratus 05:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For proposals to become adpoted as policies there needs to be consenus. If there is no clear consensus the proposal should not become policy in its present form. Thryduulf 13:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this only works if you assert that a "fairly high bar for acceptance" is equivalent to consensus.  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

A comment has the weight of a formal poll entry
17) In any discussion where a decision must eventually be reached, a comment indicating support or opposition, if not withdrawn or superceded, may be counted as such, if and when one is counting numbers, regardless of format or whether within the context of a poll or not.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Here's the reasoning behind this. Say a person comments on something, and his comment shows clear support or opposition, and there is a poll later, and he doesn't participate. Does his comment have no value, then? No, it should be considered - if and to the extent that one is tabulating numbers. I think this is unexceptionable. For instance, if a person leaves a comment on an AfD saying "This article fails guideline X and is worthless", but doesn't prepend that with the traditional "Delete", the closing editor would nevertheless be unreasonable to ignore his comment, if and to the extent that he's tabulating raw numbers. Herostratus 06:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Such comments may well be misinterpreted. One cannot necessarily pigeonhole a somewhat lengthy comment into a binary support or oppose. ( Radiant ) 13:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is only of value if there have been no changes to what is being commented on between the time of the comment and the straw poll. There must also be unequivicable (sp?) and unconditional support or opposition for the entire proposal. A lot of comments on proposals, particularly in the early stages of development, can not be pidgeonholed one way or the other. Care must also be taken not to treat support for the principle as support for the specific proposal without an explicit statement - i.e. I support the principle of protecting children, but object to the proposed way of doing this. Thryduulf 14:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is dangerous per Thryduulf's reasoning. Proposals are not static. Aside from that issue, I disagree with this !vote-counting on a fundamental level. Some would not make the same comment if they knew it would be officially counted as opposed to simply being used in a discussion to raise a point for others to think about. A poll by definition does not sample the entire community, and it is an unacceptable practice to assume a formal vote when none has been made. Your AfD example is irrelevant and misleading because AfDs are not polls. Your reasoning assumes that tabulating raw numbers is acceptable and it is not. If you want people to vote on a poll, advertise at the village pump or something. If an editor who commented previously is not around for the poll and that vote would have made a difference, then there were not enough votes for a decision to be reached anyways.  Big Nate 37 (T) 20:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I agree with Herostratus. 6SJ7 02:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Consequences of absence of policy
18) If there is no specific policy which addresses a problem, it is handled on a case by case basis. The response generally reflects the level of disruption involved, but may result in a dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 12:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed, but it doesn't necessarily cause a dispute. If there are no problems caused by the absence of policy, there is usually no point in having a policy. Thryduulf 14:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ban for disruption (principle)
19) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 16:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * It is unclear whether you refer to three different groups (1) children, (2) sexual persona and (3) disclosing personal information, as each individually disruptive and blockable, or whether you refer to only the one group exhibiting all three characteristics simultaneously, as disruptive and blockable. ( Radiant ) 16:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The situation may vary, the common tread is serious disruption. Fred Bauder 16:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow you. Do you assert that self-identifying as a child is seriously disruptive, or that posting links to myspace.com is seriously disruptive? Or do you mean to say that editors engaged in serious disruption may be banned regardless of age or sexualness etc? Or something else again? ( Radiant ) 17:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that two of those three actions could constitute disruption, but not just one (there are many examples of editors in each group). Of course, the extend of said disruption varies on a case-by-case basis and I'd be hesitant to call that sort of thing "seriously" disruptive in a blanket statement. I do like the angle Fred is taking on this one, though.  Big Nate 37 (T) 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 16:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed, although the normal caveats about not being disruptive apply. Thryduulf 18:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * True, and I think that is the only way they should be permitted to edit. 6SJ7 02:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I object in the strongest terms to 6SJ7's suggestion that children should only be allowed to edit anonymously. This is age discrimination pure and simple to prevent users from gaining the benefits of creating an account. Particularly relevant to this discussion is "[With an account, y]our IP address will no longer be visible to other users meaning you will have greater privacy.". Thryduulf 08:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I used anonymously to refer to use of a pseudonym rather than real name. Fred Bauder 14:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I may have made an error here. I probably misread Fred's comment, because I momentarily forget that "anonymously" means something different on Wikipedia than it does on virtually every other venue I have participated in on the Internet.  (I had to go a long way in that sentence to avoid calling Wikipedia a "forum", which I knew some people might object to.)  I meant anonymously as in not revealing one's true name, not anonymously as in an IP address.  I agree with you about the benefits of editing under an account.  6SJ7 13:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * anonymity and pseudonymity (for some obscure linguistic reason, anonym redirects to pseudonym). Carcharoth 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Viewing a non-self-identifying user name as "anonymous", which both Fred and I have done here, is common usage on the Internet except on Wikipedia (and perhaps other Wikis). Anyway, I think this tangent has already taken up too much space on this page.  I think this little section could be rearranged so that Fred's meaning is made clear to everyone, and Thryduulf's response to me and the rest of the exchange (including this) moved to talk or deleted.  However, I don't think I'm one of the people who is allowed to move things on (or from) this page.  6SJ7 22:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Creating a (pseudonymed) account provides greater privacy to an editor (youthful or otherwise) by concealing the IP address. Newyorkbrad 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 16:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * As long as there is a consensus of opinion that the efforts are both reasonable (one person calling something reasonable does not make it so) and do not cause side effects out of proportion. Thryduulf 18:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can whole-heartedly support this without hesitation. The clincher is "discourage" as opposed to "prevent".  Big Nate 37 (T) 20:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. But in response to BigNate's comment, current practice does seem to go as far as "prevent", in that some administrators are removing personal i.d. information posted by self-described minors.  This seems to pre-date the proposed WP:CHILD policy.  I also have seen references to Oversight being used to remove this information from the page history.  There does not seem to be much controversy about these current "preventive" practices.  The only difference between current practice and WP:CHILD (or WP:YOUTH) is that the proposed policies would permit self-described minors who repeatedly re-add the information to be blocked or banned, depending on the severity of their conduct.  6SJ7 02:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure where to put this, but as this section concerns a general proposal about reasonable efforts to protect the privacy of children, I thought the examples I have raised on the /Evidence talk page might be of interest, and this seems as good a place as any to point people towards them. See here for details and further links. Carcharoth 02:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No personal information is required to register a username
22) The only information required to register a username on Wikipedia is: Provision exists for registering an email address, but this is clearly marked as optional. The new user creation page notes: " Do not use an e-mail address as your username. You are not required to share your e-mail address, but providing one is the only way to retrieve a forgotten password."
 * A unique username that begins with a capital letter
 * A password

This page also links notes in bold: "Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; see the pros and cons of using your real name.". This links to Username.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. This is a follow-up to the "editing by children" section above, and, if both are adopted, should probably follow it. Thryduulf 18:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Children should not use Wikipedia
23) Since Wikipedia is not censored for children, it follows that children should not use Wikipedia, at least without direct supervision. This is a statement of principle only and no suggestion is made as to which entities are responsible for enforcing it or how.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Logical, but common sense says otherwise. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Editors who do not understand why the development of sexually healthy persons is not well served by presenting children with the description of a Cleveland steamer and so forth may now proceed be outraged. But the current state of affairs is similar to opening a movie theater for NC-17 movies and putting up a banner that says "Free admission for kids under 12" or something. You can't have it both ways. Herostratus 23:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Get real, children relish "poop" jokes. Wikipedia's sex articles are kind of like Halloween, a catalog of really dumb things to do. Fred Bauder 14:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We should encourage parents to supervise their children's internet use (not just Wikipedia), and we should explain the reasons why (i.e. Wikipedia is not censored). However some parents may feel that their child does not need supervision, for any one of a myriad of reasons - some of which are more responsible parenting than others, and parents must be allowed to make that decision. You cannot put an age limit on it either, one 12 year old might be significantly more emotionally mature than their 14 year old next-door-neighbour. As for your comment, unless you can provide some respectable, neutral sources for your claim that "the development of sexually healthy persons is not well served by presenting children with the description of a Cleveland steamer", then it is just a POV and should not be presented as fact. Thryduulf 23:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) I also disagree that your anaology represents the current situation - an NC-17 movie (which AIUI is the equivalent of an 18 in the UK, which shows how universal age restrictions aren't) is completely different to an encyclopaedia that covers topics suitable for all ages from pre-school children to adults. Thryduulf 23:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the tagline "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia that some people can edit" lacks a certain flair. ( Radiant ) 11:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. This statement seem far too paranoid about children's need for "protection" through censorship. Surely the benefit children gain through use of Wikipedia is greater than the imagined damage of possibly seeing an image of a penis. This statement certainly goes beyond concerns about predatory behavior, which is ostensibly the issue before the ArbCom. Kaldari 06:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorse obvious statement. Children should of course use Wikipedia under adult supervision as they should be allowed to participate in the entire adult world -- under supervision appropriate to their abilities. John Reid ° 03:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that isn't what this statement says. "Children should use Wikipedia under adult supervision" is very different to "Children must not use Wikipedia without adult supervision". Thryduulf 08:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I agree that there is a problem caused by the unsuitability of WP for the youngsters (and there's no need to quote "WP:NOT" at me, I know what it says), but it's outside the subject of this arbitration and it requires a lot more discussion to find a solution. (The problem is not with them "using" WP but with them reading it.)  I agree with most of what John Reid wrote in his essay that is linked from the Evidence talk page.  It may be that one day, certain solutions are imposed on WP from the outside, and it would probably be better if WP finds the solution itself first.  But today is not that day.  6SJ7 23:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As a corollary of that, do you believe we should have implemented political censorship a priori to avert having "solutions" (i.e. being blocked out) imposed upon us by the Chinese government? ( Radiant ) 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unsubtle thinking is the background noise of Wikipedia. You should know better, Radiant. Herostratus 16:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Radiant, I don't think the comparison is valid. And note, I have not specified what I think the solution should be.  I am just suggesting that the issue be confronted and not just swept aside.   6SJ7 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Radiant!'s analogy. We should not sacrifice our principles. Herostraus, I don't understand what you mean by "unsubtle thinking", but please comment on the arguments not those making them. Thryduulf 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Template
24) (Place proposed principle here)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
25) (Place proposed principle here)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
26) (Place proposed principle here)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia has a disputed template
1) The Wikipedia community uses the disputedpolicy template for when the status of a policy or guideline is disputed. This is when the page in question has no consensus or an unclear status.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not appropriate for a proposed policy. Fred Bauder 23:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Strongly oppose. This is not acceptable for use on proposals which have never been a policy or guideline. It literally calls the page "this policy or guideline" in bold letters. Even an insinuation of acknowledgement that the page is or was a policy or guideline is unacceptable, as it afforts the proposal a stepping-stone to acceptance.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Text sourced from disputedpolicy and Template messages/Project namespace. The template exists, therefore I figure this is a finding of fact. It's relevant because it probably would have solved the mess a lot quicker, and involves no-one taking a POV regarding the status of the page. The template was used to great effect at Spoiler warning. Both sides agreed to use the disputedpolicy tag, thereby ending a major argument regarding how to tag the article while the greater issue was under discussion (guideline, proposed, rejected, et cetera). This also attracted additional users to the talk page, thereby aiding in the dispute resolution process. It was also recently used at WP:SNOW and worked a similar effect. Hiding Talk 13:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This tag is for policies/guidelines which were once tagged as policy/etc, but then became disputed; not for policies that are still in the proposal stage. Big Nate is right; if the text begins "The status of this policy or guideline", then that explictly implies the page is a policy/guideline, not a proposal. WP:COPPA is still definitely in the proposal stage. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see the objections as a wrong page issue, to be perfectly honest. If one side feels it is a policy and the other doesn't then wrong page applies. If the page has consensus, then it is a policy/guideline, if it doesn't, then it is rejected.  That seems fairly binary and makes this a wrong page issue.  Having a disputed tag in no way declares a page as a policy, it declares the status as disputed.  People seem to be getting hung up on the slightest phrase here.  Say the page found consensus, then it would be policy and the argument would be redundant.  Say it found no consensus and was marked as historical or redundant, it wouldn't then matter what it's former status was.  The opposals are based on a semantic point which doesn't apply apart from extending an argument.  Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process.  The same tag was used during the discussion over the status of WP:SNOW where it wasn't deemed controversial. Hiding Talk 11:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In my view this misses the point for two reasons: on the one hand, one could quite easily edit the template to say "this policy, guideline or proposal is disputed"; on the other, if there is consensus that the proposal is disputed then by definition it does not have the necessary consensus to become policy. Playing tag with it is simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Guy 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a polarized proposal template
1) The Wikipedian Community has available the polarized proposal template for when the status of a policy proposal is disputed because active discussion has polarized.

New policy proposals are tagged proposed, which makes perfect sense. If and when consensus gathers about one, it is tagged guideline; as this consensus solidifies, it may be tagged policy. Well and good; very clear.

We run into some trouble, though, with proposals that stand for some time without gathering consensus. I believe there are 4 different states into which such a proposal may fall; there were an insufficient number of tags with which to represent these states, leading to inappropriate tagging and the occasional tag war. I have remedied this lack.


 * inactive-proposal is meant for proposals which failed to attract much interest; they simply petered out with insufficient discussion.


 * stalled-proposal is meant for proposals which have been active, with plenty of comment but no other outcome.


 * polarized proposal is meant for proposal discussions in which, unfortunately, participants have solidified into competing factions, unable to compromise. The discussion may rage on but consensus is unlikely to emerge without the intervention of neutral parties. This tag is appropriate when the meta-issue of which tag is appropriate is itself disputed....This may not only avoid tag warring; it leaves open the door to improvement, always a goal. Finally, it is much more honest. John Reid 13:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * These templates seem useful. Fred Bauder 23:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I created these three new proposal tags specifically to address issues such as that raised above: (disputedpolicy)...is not acceptable for use on proposals which have never been a policy or guideline. This new template has not yet seen use but there's no reason not to begin. Sorry if the icon is unlovely. John Reid 04:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that this is a proposed finding of fact. I think it's a little hard to oppose it; the template does exist, whether the community wants to use it or not. John Reid 19:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I like the wording, for the most part. Any proposal status tag can be abused, so I don't think the cause-effect (i.e. polarised tag causes polarisation) arguement is significant here. I would suggest modifying stalled-proposal to make it clear that polarisation has not occured, otherwise that tag seems redundant.  Big Nate 37 (T) 05:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please edit this page, BigNate. I did the best I could. I really do think there are several distinct states other than endorsement, all the way from we certainly hate it through nobody cares, we're still thinking about it and we still don't know to i know but you don't agree. The shortcut to tag warring is to provide an honest tag on which everyone can agree, even if they don't agree on the substantive issue or even on its level of support. Polarized-proposal is my best effort but I'm sure it can be improved, as can the others. Sorry. John Reid 19:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not consider these extra templates to be particularly useful, and too bureaucratically specific. Inactive and stalled are covered by "historical". Polarized means "no consensus" which is de facto rejected. <font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i a n t &lt;  10:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that's not so. A proposal can go through quite a bit of discussion before it's been rejected. It's absurd to tag a new proposal rejected before it's been chewed over. No consensus is the starting condition for anything; then there may be discussion -- or not. If there is discussion, it may go somewhere -- or not. If it goes somewhere, it may be accepted, rejected, or fall into a middle state. Finally, there is the possibility -- which I believe we see here -- that participants are so polarized that they do not agree on a proposal's status. These are all distinct states and I can't imagine why anyone would oppose labeling them for what they are. John Reid ° 03:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * To be honest, I think rather than yet another template we could simply tweak the disputed one. But I think this whole issue is a little inane anyway.  I'm not sure that a polarising template is within the bounds of WP:CSD either, on balance it may be thought divisive? ;) I think rather than tag something as polarised we should just not tag it.  Polarisation may lead to further polarisation, if you will.  I mean, I like the idea in principle, but I'd hate to see polarised-template added to this template.  It just feels like another step on the road of bureaucracy. But yes, if any other tag would stop the warring, then that would have been good. Hiding Talk 12:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I just think there's no harm in being honest. We wish that discussions did never polarize; sometimes they do. Although a policy tag is frequently the object of a kind of king-of-the-hill war in which the goal is to raise your team's standard -- for its own sake -- the legitimate purpose of a tag is to clue in the newcomer to the page. That new guy deserves to hear it straight. John Reid 04:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This has the same problem as noted above: if a proposal lacks consensual support and is making no progress towards consensual support then it is rejected. We can phrase rejected differently if we like, but it won't change the fundamental fact.  I see benefit in using a "polari{s|z}ed" template on Talk pages which are perennial battlegrounds, but a policy proposal which reaches that stage is probably best abandoned and/or started again. Guy 20:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally disagree, JzG. Consensus can change. I like ("support") the templates that John Reid created above (though I think we should revert Radiant!'s redirects to historical). Ignoring them for the moment, however, I think we need one stating that: "There is currently no consensus in this ongoing discussion"; and one saying that the discussion is inactive, and currently has no consensus. I note that that is essentially what John Redi's two new suggested templates do. Somehow I don't think that being clear in a page header (which is what these templates are) is a "bad thing". Whatever is done, "rejected" needs a new name. - jc37 03:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, but until the facts change this is extremely unlikely. This proposal had been stalled, with no substantive changes, for over a month. The discussion was not going anywhere as one side refused to engage in discussion. The only thing about which there was consensus was that the proposal should be tagged as "rejected". Thryduulf 08:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, it would seem that you're talking about the application of the templates in this situation. Above, I was talking about the templates in general. If what you say is true, then I presume this (the "stalled" templates header that John Reid suggests) would be appropriate. - jc37 08:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a proposal template
1) Proposals still in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption are tagged as proposals.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Right Fred Bauder 23:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose. The logic is sound, but the criteria are not. What is the threshhold for "in the process of gathering consensus"? That's arbitrary and entirely based on interpretation of the discussion, and thus useless. "Still under discussion" is explicitly not a safeguard against rejection unless the discussion meets certain criteria (i.e. not redundant, repetitive discussion) per WP:POL. If it was this simple, none of us would be here.  Big Nate 37 (T) 00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Herostratus 06:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Hopefully this one will be clear enough then. If it ain't a policy/guideline and it ain't rejected, then it must still be a proposal. Hiding Talk 12:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Children's privacy a legal issue
1) The issues surrounding children's privacy are primarily (though not exclusively) legal issues, and thus outside of the jurisdiction of the community.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Arbitration_policy provides that "Sensible "real world" laws" may be taken into consideration. Fred Bauder 20:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose. Nothing is outside the jurisdiction of the community; all power stems ultimately from the community. We do have bodies (in this case, Foundation Legal) which also have jurisdiction -- because we have given it them. We have the right to take it back at any time. John Reid 05:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since the Foundation and its representatives have not made any comment on the matter (and they have been asked to), it would be foolish to assume this is beyond our scope as a policy-making community. They possess veto power, but let's not presume to use it on their behalf.  Big Nate 37 (T) 05:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Says it all. Phil Sandifer 05:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Opposed. They are community issues.  On the level of the federal "community" they are dealt with by legislation.  Within Wikipedia, they should be dealt with by policy.  6SJ7 05:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant in any case. The Arbcom is not being asked to decide on this. Since we are looking for facts here, the fact should read Some Wikipedians believe that (beyond possible legal issues) the moral responsibility of the community towards its younger participants justifies a specific children's privacy policy. Others feel that such a policy is unnecessary and that children's privacy issues should be handled (as they currently are) on a case-by-case basis. Pascal.Tesson 05:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Children's privacy a legal issue (2)
1) The issues surrounding children's privacy are primarily (though not exclusively) legal issues.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Arbitration_policy provides that "Sensible "real world" laws" may be taken into consideration. Fred Bauder 23:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I'm not sure this is entirely relevant to the ArbCom case, though. Policy proposals often discuss legal issues; we handle all proposals via the same mechanism of discussion, consensus-building, and occasional fiat. John Reid 05:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on the discussion at WP:CHILD, I'd say that most of the support for the policy was not out of legal concern.  Big Nate 37 (T) 05:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * BigNate has convinced me. The substantive issue is totally irrelevant to this case. For the sake of argument, this proposal could have been whether to distribute free watermelons in East Palo Alto. This proposal would raise legal issues, moral issues, questions of bigotry and racial stereotyping, questions of bureaucratic compliance, permits and licenses, money, safety, health. Also, it would set a radical precedent by proposing meatspace action. This is the most extreme example I can generate at short notice. Even at such an extreme, none of these issues would come into play here at RfArb. The only question is whether there is or is not a user conduct issue and how best to address that. John Reid 16:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the point of this "finding of fact"? "WP:CHILD is mostly a legal issue". OK, why does that matter? If it matters, state why. If it doesn't matter, scratch it altogether. Kaldari 07:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I think this is trying too much too. Wikipedia must certainly respect the law, but it can go further if it desires, see our fair use policy for an example, so I'm not sure this is relevant.  Furthermore, the issues surrounding children's privacy, I would suggest, are primarily parent-child issues.  I don't think arb-com should be declaring who owns an issue, not even primarily.  My children's privacy is primarily my issue, and to be honest, to hell with what the law says if the law is an ass. Wikipedia must respect the law, but issues of children's privacy are collectively hard to judge and hard to impose.  I'm not sure we should muddy it.  Perhaps restate as Wikipedia must respect laws on children's privacy such as they apply.  Issues not covered by law are for the community to decide upon through consensus to apply in a policy or guideline manner, and for individuals to decide upon at an individual level where such differ. But that stills seems muddy. Hiding Talk 12:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 20:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed, although there was much debate/confusion about whether it was attempting to rectify a legal problem or a moral problem. Thryduulf 14:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Alternate formulation
1) User:6SJ7/Proposed Child information policy


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Notes Fred Bauder 22:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * See also Youth policies and Privacy. ( Radiant ) 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Just a note for those trying to follow the link Fred provided. User:6SJ7/Proposed Child information policy is (or was) identical to Youth policies.  When I was finished writing it in my user space, including the receipt of one edit by another user, I created the proposed policy page and copied the text.  (This was about a month ago.)  I should have made the user-space page a redirect immediately to avoid confusion.  I have done so now.  The only unique material that still exists in my user space are a couple of user's comments on the talk page for the page that is now a redirect.  Most of the comments have been made directly at Youth policies.  6SJ7 04:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: If anyone is looking for the "alternate formulation", they will not find it at Youth policies, at least not at the moment.  Radiant has decided to blank that page and replace it with a redirect to Protecting children's privacy.  He calls it a "merge", but unless I am missing something, the text of the previously existing article has not changed, which means that the newer page has simply been blanked.  I suppose I should explain, briefly, why there were two separate pages.  Because several people had cited the prevalence of COPPA in the older page as being one of the reasons for their opposition, I had considered replacing the "Protecting children's privacy" page with the "Youth policies" page several weeks ago after I completed the latter.  However, I held back because I thought that such a switch might disrupt the arbitration by creating confusion concerning what the arbitration was really about.  Now I see that my sense of caution didn't accomplish anything.  If I had followed Radiant's apparent philosophy, I would have simply plowed ahead and not worried about the consequences.  If anyone regards that comment as being "un-civil", so be it.  I think it is very charitable and restrained under the circumstances, as I regard Radiant's action as being highly inappropriate.  But for now at least, I am not going to revert it, report it, or do anything else about it.  I have no desire to engage in the "policy politics" that I see going on here.  I will, however, restore the text at the page that Fred Bauder originally linked to, in my user space, so people can see what the "alternate formulation" was if they wish.    6SJ7 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On that page's talk page, there are many comments opposed to it and none in support except for the page author. I've asked on that very talk page whether it should be redirected back to the main policy, and received no objections. So I went ahead and did it. If 6SJ7 objects to this he could have said so when I asked, or he is welcome to undo the redirect and see if anyone actually agrees with his proposal. But making a bunch of complaints and personal attacks here is not a productive solution. ( Radiant ) 10:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the big hurry was. I didn't see your note (which was up for three days, during most of which time I was traveling) before you blanked the page.  And if I had commented, you just would have pointed out that nobody was objecting other than the creator of the page.  You are correct about the fact that none of the many people who supported the concept behind this proposal on the WP:CHILD page chose to participate in the page I created.  My theory as to why this happened is that the conduct of certain people on the WP:CHILD page (some of which is discussed on this page) caused a lot of people, people who don't spend a lot of their time trying to dictate what Wikipedia policy is, to get confused and frustrated and give up.   6SJ7 00:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Way to assume good WP:FAITH there. If you had objected, I would not have redirected the page (unless a bunch of others chimed in to agree with me, which they hadn't). I agree that the conduct of certain people on WP:CHILD (or, indeed, on this ArbCom page) has been inappropriate, but do you have any evidence for the allegation that this actually chased people away? ( Radiant ) 09:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, I reverted it after commenting on the talk page. I think the fact that it is specifically referred to on this page as an "alternate formulation" means that the text should remain where it was.  If you want to put one of those new tags on it that signifies that it is neither accepted or rejected, or even an "inactive" tag (for now), I would not object.  As for the "conduct of certain people", I suspect we are talking about different "certain people."  As for evidence that people have been chased away, I think there is evidence on the original policy's talk page that some people were confused by... a certain action which I will not mention again because whenever anyone does, you accuse them of personal attacks.  I can't identify a specific person who was "chased" away.  I have noticed, however, that the filing of an ArbComm case often sends most users scattering at high speed away from the subject article, until it is over.  That seems to have occurred here as well (primarily with regard to the original policy page; I suspect that by the time I posted the "alternate formulation," the people who had scattered wanted nothing to do with the subject any more.)   6SJ7 17:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I object to the conduct of people who are more interested in making veiled accusations than in dicussing the matter at hand. ( Radiant ) 11:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a rejected template
50) Proposals that still under discussion, where the discussion isn't going anywhere, and that do not have consensual support, are marked as "rejected".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think more than stalled and controversial is required for Template:Rejected to be appropriate. Fred Bauder 02:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm not saying that was actually the case here, but if we're going to list all the related templates here then this is one of them. ( Radiant ) 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Concerns #1
51) Some editors have expressed the concern that the problem this proposal asserts to solve (of protecting young editors against pedophiles) has not been shown to exist on Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * We have seen a few examples, probably the product of law enforcement efforts, which were quite gross. Fred Bauder 02:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * That the concern exists is fact. Whether it's grounded is up to debate. ( Radiant ) 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Protecting young editors from sexual predators is not the only basis for the proposal. To my mind plain old harassment is at least as big an issue. To the extent that it is protecting against sexual predators, yes, I believe that this has not existed on Wikipedia. (Also pedophile != predator, plz.) Herostratus 04:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Concerns #2
52) Some editors expressed the concern that this proposal does not fundamentally make Wikipedia safer for children; since editors are not required to identify themselves, it would merely encourage children to not identify, or falsely identify.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think it's more about forestalling the drama. Fred Bauder 02:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * That the concern exists is fact. Whether it's grounded is up to debate. ( Radiant ) 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, they have? I thought it was pretty unexceptionable that if you're 11 but self-identify as 47-year-old long-haul truck driver from Racine, you're gonna be a lot safer from sexual predators (if there are any) than if you self-identify truthfully. I think that this is incontrovertible and was pretty much established as such. Herostratus 04:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It does boil down to blocking people for refusing to lie about their age. ( Radiant ) 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody is asking anyone to lie about anything. There is no requirement that anyone give their age on Wikipedia.  I know some people do, on their user pages.  I don't think I have ever found a need to disclose any information about myself.  I do not think it is necessary in the course of editing an encyclopedia.  6SJ7 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Concerns #3
53) Some editors expressed the concern that this proposal promotes preventative blocking of children accounts, which could be said to amount to WP:BITEing the newbies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Knowing how bullheaded kids can be, I suppose it could happen. Fred Bauder 02:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * That the concern exists is fact. Whether it's grounded is up to debate. ( Radiant ) 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Rewrite
54) This rewrite was intended to reach a compromise between supporters and detractors of the proposal.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Way washed out. Fred Bauder 02:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I realize that it didn’t work out, though. ( Radiant ) 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Currently cited as the basis for administrative action
1) WP:CHILD has been cited as the basis of numerous adminstrative actions. (See here and here)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. There is an interesting split between the sub-community that has been discussing the proposal and the sub-community of editors who have been enforcing the proposed guideline or policy in response to complaints on the noticeboards. In many ways it is similar to the split between members of the recent changes patrol, who would like editors who remove warnings from their own user talk pages treated as vandals; and administrators who monitor the noticeboards who refuse to enforce such warnings and view edit warring over user talk warnings as often more disruptive than the action which prompted the warning. (See here for one example.) Ironically, Radiant is on the side of the noticeboard consensus in this particular division. Thatcher131 03:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Drastic rewrite during a straw poll
1) Radiant drastically rewrote the policy during a straw poll to guage consensus, undermining the effectiveness of the poll. See Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Evidence. Radiant removed administrative protection implaced by Winhunter in order to do so.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Just a mistake. Fred Bauder 13:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Note that when I did the rewrite, I was unaware that a poll had been started a few hours earlier. The protection was because of an edit war a few days earlier; this war appeared to have stopped. ( Radiant ) 13:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When you added the note to the talk page about your new version, 3 minutes after you substituted your version onto the policy page, you really didn't see that a poll was going on? Didn't you actually have to scroll through the poll (which was pretty lengthy due to the way Herostratus set it up) to add your new section to the talk page?  If you say you didn't see it, I guess we have no choice but to "assume good faith" and let it drop -- but it is a bit difficult to believe.  6SJ7 00:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Incivility doesn't contribute positively to a discussion, it just makes cooperation impossible. There is another (and better) way of adding sections to talk pages, and it doesn't involve editing the last section of a page. Please don't badger the arbitration case members, it's rude.  Big Nate 37 (T) 06:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. One of the problems with this proposal is the continual nasty and snide remarks, assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks made by a select few proponents of the proposal - who are in effect poisoning the well for the more civilly-inclined proponents. Several examples are found on this page alone; perhaps it needs to be clarified that ad hominems are neither a valid argument nor a form of dispute resolution. ( Radiant ) 12:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A mistake? Gah. Poll or no, an editor really oughtn't blank a page that several editors have discussed and worked on and replace it with whatever is in his head at the moment. That way lies chaos. There is such a thing as subpages. Herostratus 09:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Radiant's insistence in a prior case that voting is evil (paraphrased) and the consensus is not determined by polls; and his most recent comments here that votes must have pre-determined thresholds for success, concern me. While voting is not the best or only way to determine community consensus on a topic, it is a useful tool, and I think it is necessary here to point out that Radiant unprotected the article in order to drastically rewrite it, which had the effect (regardless of intent) of undermining a poll that was only a few hours old. Thatcher131 03:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not all votes need a pre-determined threshold, but votes to enact an official policy (such as this one, but like I said in my finding NOT the second poll) do need something pre-determined. ( Radiant ) 13:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u
1), now indefinitely blocked with user page deleted, was an example of a user who chose a suggestive user name, projected a "sexy" persona, and freely included links to social sites. The age, gender, and identity of the user is unknown but the persona projected was that of a black teenager. She claimed to be 11 years old. Example of their style.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * According to the block log, the reason for the block was "Long-term sockpuppeteer, many many many abusive edits". Is there evidence that this block was actually for "posting personal information while being underage"? If not, I don't quite see how this is relevant to WP:CHILD. ( Radiant ) 14:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do. I saw this account and considered it very problematic before I learned anything else about the user. Way borderline, although rightly or wrongly I let it go, on the grounds that... I just didn't want to get into it, I guess. Cute 1 4 U is not quite blockable on username grounds - it would OK (maybe, marginally) if she was 27. But the combination of the username with the (purported) age? No. And if there's anyone who thinks that's OK for the 'pedia, I just... wow. Herostratus 04:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that name violates the username policy. It would be different if the user was "hot sex 4 u", but being cute isn't offensive. ( Radiant ) 15:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cute is OK. Being "4 U" suggests ulterior motives. Being "4 U" and 11 is over the top. Herostratus 17:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In contrast I do not think it is at all inappropriate. The user name could mean "An editor who considers themselves to be cute, who has come to belp you, the Wikipedia community, with your project". Neither their age nor the fact they apparently were not here to build an encyclopaedia change this anymore than an 11 year old vandal called "Encyclopaedia fan" makes that name inappropriate. Thryduulf 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

User:Cute 1 4 u was blocked for being an abusive sockpuppeter, not for being a child
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Their presentation of a persona was part of it. Fred Bauder 14:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Everybody presents a persona online - even users who reveal nothing about themselves (e.g. user:Uncle G). The reason this user was blocked was that the persona (or the way they presented it) was disruptive. Thryduulf 18:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I don't know the full details of this case, but the block reason was "Long-term sockpuppeteer, many many many abusive edits" ". That they claimed to be a child was not the reason for blocking. Thryduulf 14:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia has editors in good standing who are children
1) Wikipedia has several good, productive editors who self-identify as children. We also have at least one administrator who is legally a minor in the United States.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. This needs to be stated if there is discussion about children being blocked for being children. Thryduulf 14:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Actually, I think we have dozens of admins who are minors (meaning under 18, not under 13, and I wouldn't use the word "children"). I know we have at least one bureaucrat who's a minor, and in fact, unless he's had a birthday recently, we currently have one arbitrator who's a minor. Newyorkbrad 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 14:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Self-identified children may or may not be children. Any other phrasing may be true but slanted for a particular purpose.  Big Nate 37 (T) 20:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I support BigNate's phrasing. If you want to combine the two I'd support "Self-identified children may or may not be children, adult predators, etc.". Of course many people might be any combination of these - it is even possible to be both a child and an adult predator simultaneously (e.g. if you prey on children, and are an adult in some jurisdictions and a child in others.) Thryduulf 21:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * BigNate is correct. ( Radiant ) 11:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with Fred's wording. "Children, or adults likely up to no good" would cover it too, if by "no good" we mean not being here with the interests of the 'pedia foremost. Herostratus 05:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not Fred's wording but taken from WP:CHILD. I appreciate that Fred is trying to look at this thing from top to bottom and takes nothing for granted by bringing this forward for discussion (and ultimately voting?). I'm not against the wording per se, but I did want to point out that it conveys the assertion that being a self-identified child is bad, or at least suspect. Maybe it is bad to be a self-identified child, but that sort of thing should not be left as a subtle hint. Herostratus' comment accomplishes the same thing, but without the subtlety.  Big Nate 37 (T) 06:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agreed with BigNate. The original claim is strictly incomplete and suggests a biased view by including a few categories, but excluding a lot of others. --Stephan Schulz 08:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Current practice
1) 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. Frequently 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 15:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The statement "Frequently the user is immature and ends up being blocked for disruption" is not backed by the evidence page. The evidence lists nine users identifying as minors; two of those (the second and third, Kyereh and Kimberly) were blocked for being a sockpuppet of a previously blocked user (in one case a vandal, in the other a "myspacer"). None of the others were blocked, and for several this was not even suggested. There is no evidence that the barrier to block a user for disruption is lower if that user happens to be under age. ( Radiant ) 16:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 16:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed. Thryduulf 18:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Users who disrupt Wikipedia may be blocked
1) Per the Blocking policy, users who disrupt Wikipedia may be blocked or banned from editing, regardless of how they are disruptive or any other factors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Related to the proposed remedy "Ban for disruption". Thryduulf 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.

Matter remanded to Foundation
1) Due to the legal concerns involved in this policy, the matter is remanded to the Wikimedia Foundation to determine an acceptable policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think we should solicit and welcome input from Jimbo and the Office. Fred Bauder 23:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose. The Wikimedia Foundation has been contacted regarding the potentially legal angle here (see Thatcher131's comment as such and in general the Foundation Issue section of Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy). We don't need to defer to them, the Foundation will simply step in and override policy if there is the need. They have been given over a month to do so. Unless and until the Foundation intervenes, all policy is proposed and gains acceptance through community collaboration towards consensus. Note that this arbitration case's purpose is not to define the policy, which I agree would not be the comittee's place. Also, note that this policy is not a solution to a legal problem but a moral/ethical one (assuming you agree there is a problem). You may or may not have intended for this implication, but if the arbitration comittee agrees with you that this is a Foundation matter, that is grounds to reject the proposal at once as it is not written or blessed by the Foundation.  Big Nate 37 (T) 05:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think such grounds exist - Wikipedia ought not take up legal matters on a community level. Once those matters got introduced t the discussion and became a major aspect of the discussion, to my mind, the entire debate became tainted. Phil Sandifer 15:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you meant by proposing this remedy. I did mention however that the Foundation has failed to veto or condone the proposal in any form; assuming your remedy is passed, if the Foundation still does not acknowledge the proposal are you comfortable with the proposal simply being rejected? What if that prompts some to rewrite the proposal with a new name and a disclaimer saying it is not a legal matter?  Big Nate 37 (T) 18:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the current proposal ought be rejected prima faciae. Subsequent proposals without legal investment would not be Foundation issues, though I'm skeptical that they'd garner consensus either. Phil Sandifer 19:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose but I agree that any such policy should originate with Foundation Legal Department. I only disagree that they should or must be prompted. Meanwhile, the community has developed such a proposal; my opinion on the substantive issue is irrelevant. Board Legal has the authority to choose to (a) endorse the proposal; (b) amend and mandate it; (c) rewrite it in such a way as to nullify it and mandate that; (d) create its own policy and hand it down by fiat; or (e) do nothing. Board Legal can take any of these actions at any time. We don't need to jiggle elbows. John Reid 05:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Silence is a perfectly reasonable response. But this should be explicitly taken out of the arbcom level, and it should be made explicit that this is a Board issue. Phil Sandifer 05:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I said it should originate with Board Legal. It didn't. John Reid 05:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is not the arbcom's place. Phil Sandifer 00:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree in the sense that Arbcom should not decide the status of this proposal; disagree in that it should be made clear that the Board doesn't have to make a decision at all. See my (admittedly way more verbose) proposal below. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a way of saying "there should be a policy, let the office write it". I think a lot of people opposing the idea are thinking "there is no clear need for a policy and if there ever was, the office will write it because it will have legal implications." Pascal.Tesson 04:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Rejected
2) For lack of consensus, this proposal is rejected. It can be revisited at any time, but should not be considered a guideline or policy until significant discussion and consensus in favor of it is reached.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Conditional support. I will only support a version that emphasises that the ruling is not permanent nor is it even long-term. Should a consensus appear more likely to exist down the road, I don't want to see this ruling being quoted as law. I don't like how I worded that, but I'm hoping it made sense.  Big Nate 37 (T) 00:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ral315 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support but I think the problem is lack of consensus. What makes the proposal rejected is that there has not been (for a long time) significant progress towards a solution that would be consensual. Pascal.Tesson 04:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Rejected (no mention of revisiting)
3) For lack of consensus, this proposal is rejected.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Ral315 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although I don't support the policy in question, it's not ArbCom's role to make such a definite statement. Also likely to fuel resentment on part of the policy's supporters. Pascal.Tesson 04:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Title was misleading; I've changed it. It wouldn't reject it for good, but it wouldn't mention its revisiting.  Ral315 (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No judgement on proposal's status
1) The Arbitration Committee makes no decision as to whether this proposal shall be accepted or rejected as policy. The community is encouraged to continue constructive discussion and to reach consensus over whether or not this proposal should be adopted as policy. The Wikimedia Foundation may decide policy itself if it sees fit, but in the absence of a Foundation-level decision this proposal should continue to be judged by the community as normal.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Endorse, although I'm going to propose an alternative. This is fine. John Reid 05:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. This is essentially the status quo, or the "do nothing" option, only explicitly spelled out for the benefit of the community. Personally, I don't believe that the Arbcom should take it upon itself to decide the status of the proposal one way or the other. If it's urgent, it's surely a Board matter, and if it's not urgent, it's a community matter. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Very weak support. My second prefered option. Of course this is also a bit of a Pontius Pilate move on the part of Arbcom and would not be coherent after accepting the case . Bonus points for the verbosity though. The wording of recommended remedies should be detailed enough to make it clear that the Arbcom is not imposing a policy choice but arbitrating a dispute among stubborn editors. Pascal.Tesson 04:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it would be incoherent. When the Arbcom accepts a case it hasn't already made up its mind to take action - that would be like a trial with no possibility of finding someone 'innocent'. Accepting a case simply means that the case is worth looking at. Requests_for_arbitration/Giano is a recent case where the Arbcom decided, arguably, to do little more than clarify, while Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid only ended in warnings. Besides, even when leaving the issue of the proposal's status, there still seems to be a significant conduct issue. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose you have a point there and I retract that particular statement but it's still my second prefered option. Pascal.Tesson 14:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned only insofar as I think it's manifestly not the job of the community to make policy with goals of covering legal ass. Phil Sandifer 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal tag mandated
1) The policy proposal Protecting children's privacy is tagged polarized proposal. This tag is mandated for a period of one month, during which time no editor may exchange it, apply any competing status tag, or apply any tag or template above it on the page. At the end of this time, these restrictions are removed. If tag-warring recommences at any time, any admin is empowered to reapply the polarized-proposal tag, citing this remedy in edit summary. Upon each such action an additional one-month mandate shall obtain.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. The slightest possible tap of the sledgehammer. John Reid 05:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what I think about the spirit of this, however its terms are too restrictive. Oppose weak oppose (as of 00:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)) on the basis that there is no route for removing the polarised tag should a clear consensus emerge significantly earlier than the tag is remedied to change. If this is changed according to my concern, I wouldn't support it but I'd consider myself neutral towards it.  Big Nate 37 (T) 05:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if we want to set up yet another process to petition for early termination of the cool-off period. Just letting it time out is the least intrusive, least contentious, and least laborious method. No harm is done if the tag stays a few days, even after some hypothetical consensus does emerge. My gut feeling is not that consensus will emerge but that in a month, tempers will flare again. The only question is whether people can avoid tag warring at that time. I hope so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Reid (talk • contribs) 19:38, 4 November 2006


 * You may be right...  Big Nate 37 (T) 00:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Community instructed to drop proposal
1) Because the issues of children's privacy are not issues that the community is empowered to decide, the policy proposal regarding children's policy is to be dropped until such a time as the Wikimedia Foundation asks for the input of the community.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose. Ugly. Worse than an ArbCom mandate of "proposed", "guideline", or "rejected". John Reid 05:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 6SJ7.  Big Nate 37 (T) 05:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a wiki, and we are not idiots here. We don't need to get Daddy's permission to make reasonable policies. Granting that some issues must devolve to the Foundation, this isn't one of them. Herostratus 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Weaker version of remanding to Foundation. Phil Sandifer 05:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Opposed. There is no reason why the community cannot deal with these issues.  Obviously if the Foundation chooses to deal with them, their solution takes precedence.  They can even pre-empt the field by saying that the subject is exclusively within their domain, even without issuing a policy.  But they have not done so.  Therefore, at this time, if the community wishes to take action, there is nothing precluding it from doing so.  6SJ7 05:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 16:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I personally think this particular proposal is irrevocable. See my alternative version below. Thryduulf 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that for such a proposal to gain consensus it would need to be proposed as a guideline rather than policy. I don't think policy status is required to make it actionable, and the threshold for invoking a guideline would be perceived to be higher by the community. It would also make possible voluntary disclosure of information if done in a tasteful, non-disruptive, productive manner on a case-by-case basis.  Big Nate 37 (T) 20:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Continued work needed (alternative)
1.1) The community is encouraged to continue working to achieve an acceptable policy which addresses real problems, while avoiding the creation of a hostile atmosphere for children who are editing in good faith.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Based on Fred's proposal above, but without reference to a specific proposal as I think the original one is irrevocably failed because of past actions and involvement in this arbitration case. Thryduulf 18:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ban for disruption (remedy)
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 16:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Redundant. Users who disrupt Wikipedia may be blocked, per the existing blocking policy, regardless of how they are disruptive. If they pose and children, project a provocative persona and disclose personal information, without disrupting Wikipedia, why should we ban them? Thryduulf 18:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose. I worry this, if adopted, might result in any minor who posts age, personal info, and a normal curiosity about sexuality being automatically labelled "disruptive" and banned.  A user revealing said combination of information is not inherently disruptive unless we choose to be disrupted by it.  Better to stick with the general principle "Disruptive users may be banned" than to say, in essence, "openly-underaged people with normal interests who have a homepage or an email address are inherently disruptive to Wikipedia" --Alecmconroy 12:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. It would be possible under this proposal for any self-identified minor contributing to any article any administrator thought was related to sexuaity to be blocked if they have an external link on their userpage, regardless of whether the contributions were not disruptive. Users who are trully disruptive can be blocked, regardless of how they are disruptive or what age they are or the contents of their userpage. Thryduulf 12:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 16:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed, although discussion must happen first. Thryduulf 18:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: