Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy 2

WP:USER
This could be addressed with a few lines added to WP:USER, as long as it doesn't lead to a bunch of wikilawyers agruing that since WP:USER is not a policy, it's not enforceable. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I argue against this for the reason stated. An enforceable policy is needed. --Elliskev 02:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

question
Much better than that other policy, but..
 * Users identifying themselves as children should be gently informed of this policy.

Would this be done through email? And what if email is disabled by the user in question? JayW 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You can do it on their talk page, and then go back the next day and delete the revisions containing the info (that way they could only be seen by admins) or even removed by oversight. The alternative is permanently block the account on sight and ask the user to register a new name, which might be quite a blow if the editor had a long history. It may not be perfect, but its better than doing nothing. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent question, JayW. I agree that the only resaonble way to do it is a discreet note on the user talk page. Obviously, the notice would need to be deleted within a short timeframe. We definitely don't want to solicit an email address. --Elliskev 02:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks.
On the one hand, WP:CHILD removes a child's specific identifying information that I can't see as being of any practical value to the project. On the other hand, this removes knowledge that a person is a child. Now that does seem like a useful thing to know. Working with a young person is likely to require extra care and patience. I would rather have CHILD than this. Dragons flight 06:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dragon. Also, this is instruction creep, since the limit is arbitrary and it does not solve a real problem, only a hypothetical one. TBNT.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Arbitrary time limit? Can you explain? --Elliskev 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If the goal is a moral one, to protect children, then thirteen years old is as arbitrary as fifteen or eleven. If the goal is a legal one, we should let the matter be taken care of by people who are actually well-versed in law, i.e. the Board.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see. --Elliskev 13:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does this policy apply?
According to the nutshell, this policy only applies to certain namespaces. In my opinion, this policy should apply to ALL namespaces. --Edtalk c E  16:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Centralize
To keep discussion central and organized, I suggest we redirect this proposal back to the original proposal, Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy, which is still under discussion.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)