Wikipedia:Deletion review/Category:Child Wikipedians

1. A roughly 3/4 majority holds that User:Cyde's invocation of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules was proper given the circumstances. Regarding the comment that no real arguments were made in favor of endorsing, this is not necessary. WP:IAR by definition conflicts with other policies and the sole requirement for endorsement is that the community makes a good-faith effort to weigh the conflicting arguments and decides that ignoring the rules was a necessary step under the circumstances.
2. If a previously kept Wikipedia page is listed for deletion at DRV, the threshold is near-unanimity, or roughly 80% agreement. Among established editors, this threshold has not been met (and I will not consider WP:IAR as a tool to game the system and lower this threshold). I will nevertheless not relist the category at the given time, as I don't think continuing the debate at a different location now is beneficial for the community. On the other hand, the issue might have to be revisited eventually, once the scope of WP:CHILD has been hammered out, so the closure of this review is not to prejudice the debate in the long run. This is also not to invalidate the individual opinions expressed below. ~ trialsanderrors 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Child Wikipedians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|CfD1|CfD2)

This category survived a Cfd in September and in November, and was speedily deleted on December 10. I feel that speedily deleting content, that has survived an Xfd process, per a proposal (WP:CHILD) is inappropriate. Prolog 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Original note and deleting admin's response is here: User talk:Cyde#Category:Child Wikipedians. Prolog 19:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, list at MfD. Unaware of any speedy criterion for this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You could stretch the fourth general criteria of recreated material, per the oldest cfd, Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_11#Category:Child_Wikipedians. It might snap in the stretching, but you can stretch it. It was speedied on the basis of that cfd once. One can argue that the more recent cfd's have nullified that result, but that deletion wasn't mentioned at either debate, so maybe you could argue that may have been relevant. Who knows. I'm not overbothered either way. I'm supposed to be saving the featured article status on Superman. Hiding Talk 18:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; having a category listing all of the children on Wikipedia is a horrible idea. This is probably a Foundation-level issue, not a user-level issue, so I question whether DRV even has any jurisdiction over this at all. --Cyde Weys 19:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • When the Foundation steps in regarding it, maybe this will be a worthwhile point. Until then, I'm not sure you should be acting as the Foundation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This is absurd. You can't speedy delete things that go through a XfD with "keep". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse obvious really, --Doc^g 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strangely, "obvious really" isn't very persuasive. It isn't obvious at all that things consensus failed to get deleted should just be speedied. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I tend to put child-safety ahead of process-wonkery and silly votes. If that isn't obvious then I despair.--Doc^g 20:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That's at least better than "it's obvious". Now why don't you explain to us why we must be protected in ways we don't wish to be? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Because sometimes us grown-ups know best.--Doc^g 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Condescending much, there? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
            • OK, sorry. But a) don't presume to speak for all children. b) you want treated like an adult, then don't categorise yourself as a child. Unfortunately in the real world there are nasty people who might take advantage of naive children. The best defence is that we treat children like adults and don't differentiate them. This category serves no possible encyclopedic purpose and just might be harmful, or at very least bring us into disrepute. We've already had problems with Child protection issues, and this is just another waiting to happen. That's obvious, really.--Doc^g 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You know, it's really kind of annoying when you talk about how obvious it is. It's not at all obvious to me. And the only issues with child protection I've seen are made-up scenarios by people who think that we need to protect children. That's circular logic. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Made up scenarios?! Do you know how many people per year are convicted of soliciting sex from children online each year? Hell, have you never seen Dateline: To Catch a Predator? You can't make serious societal problems disappear just by trying to pretend that they don't exist, and we must do everything within reason to protect against them. I certainly think deleting a category qualifies as reasonable. --Cyde Weys 20:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That's nice. I don't. The "no consensus" outcomes show that others don't, either. And doing everything within reason is meaningless, because the argument is what should constitute "within reason". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • We have had real child-protection issues on Wikipedia. We have had (and may still have) some users that you really don't want to meet! They are not made up. But you are going to have to take my word for it.--Doc^g 21:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Doc's arguments are more appealing than the alternatives. A handful of votes at CfD is not a great way to determine if a category is a good idea or not. This is a bad idea. We don't need to wait on the WMF to tell us that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So, wait. Instead of a handful of votes at CfD, we should use one person with a "delete" tab? What? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • CFD, delete tab, none of that matters. All that matters is that this category is a truly bad idea, and thus it should be deleted. Child predators use the Internet to find their victims. We all know that. So why should we make it sooooo easy for them to find their prey?! --Cyde Weys 20:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Because maybe I wish to identify as a child. I am not going to fall victim to a child predator; there is no chance at all I'll be that stupid. Most importantly, people disagree with you, so you can't delete it without discussion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but you just don't get to do everything you want to do, especially when you're putting your safety in jeopardy. --Cyde Weys 20:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
          • But I'm not putting my safety in jeopardy. Without personally identifying information, which is rightly discouraged from being given out, it would be impossible for someone to threaten me. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
            • This category wasn't deleted just for your safety. It was deleted for the safety of everyone in it. Maybe you are smart enough not to give up any personal details. I'll take you on your word at that. But as for the others, who knows? They're children. Kids easily get duped into revealing details they shouldn't. If someone is being really friendly and is talking to you for months, he will get to know a lot of information. Hell, we already had a case like this, where the people were even exchanging birthday gifts. --Cyde Weys 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, in an ideal world CfD would have zapped this at the first attempt. However, there have been two CfDs, and it has been kept twice. In a marginally less ideal world, the second CfD would have been brought here, and then the category would have been deleted. So, yes, I would have preferred to have deleted this by following process, but this is clearly a case where the outcome is what matters, not the process. It's not even a real category, and deleting it makes no difference to creating an encyclopedia. If this were articlespace, I'd feel differently, but it's not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Truly a bad idea. --Folantin 20:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Aaaargh. Why does your opinion justify speedy deleting something that passed a CfD? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • And why does your opinion on the importance of process trump the safety of children?! --Cyde Weys 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Because it's not agreed upon that this constitutes a threat. And child safety is really not our problem. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The speculation about possible predators was part of both Cfd's. These were valid discussions including several users and their opinions. Prolog 20:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted --lightdarkness ^(talk) 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? This is not a vote. Prolog 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually it is. ~ trialsanderrors 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Why you ask? Because I think the article should remain deleted... I thought I got my point across in my previous statement. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 21:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - pending the final outcome of arbitration about protecting children's privacy affecting policy, guideline or process on protecting children's privacy, whatever form of guidance Wikipedia:Categories for discussion has they prevent us from maintaining Wikipedia, and we should ignore them.--Alf ^melmac 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Um... How can we keep something pending completion of an arbitration case which is completed? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. It is in development and cannot yet be described as "policy", we will need to follow the consensus that emerges there before undeleting this category. I pointed to the over-arching arbcom decision from which this proposed policy, guideline, or process came.--Alf ^melmac 21:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What kind of logic is that? Because someone happened to speedy delete it, ignoring 2 CfDs, it must stay deleted? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The proposed remedies include deletion and oversight to remove the information, this category would collect that information. I understand it survived earlier CfDs, the previous history is voided by the ArbCom rulings.--Alf ^melmac 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted A bad idea does not get better with more discussion. Restoring it while more discussion occurs will prolong the chance that harm will occur related to this category. --FloNight 21:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Pages cannot be speedied after surviving xfd. This is a blatant disregard of policy and process. "Could cause more trouble than its worth" is NOT A CRITERION FOR SPEEDY DELETION. --- RockMFR 21:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Process does not trump policy. If there ever were a case for IAR, this is it. This category is a monumentally bad idea. I mean no malice towards the category's creator(s), or those who argue it should be kept. However, such a category does not help the project in any way, and I can think of one thousand and one ways it could be abused.

  Yes, here on Wikipedia we have our nice, warm, fuzzy guidelines about assuming good faith and all that, but unfortunately, in the big and often scary world beyond Wikipedia, there are genuinely evil people, and, unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot entirely shut out that world. As Amarkov points out, there thankfully hasn't been any major event involving minors being preyed upon via Wikipedia, but in the spirit of BEANS, I see no compelling reason to make such an occurrence more likely. I can think of any number of plausible scenarios involving such a category. Besides the notion of having a public list of minors available to anyone who fancies a look (along with links to their User and Talk pages and editing history), suppose someone wants to ingrain him or herself with underage contributors for purposes which I'll leave to the imagination? There's nothing to stop said user from adding him or herself to the category. Sure, we obviously can't stop people from pretending to be things they're not (unless Brion gets around to that Mindreader extension), but that's no reason to help them along.

  Wikipedia is quite different from "just another website" in many respects, but in this case, I see no reason why we should not follow the example of virtually every other site of comparable magnitude that stores personally identifiable user data in attempting to restrict the information underage users reveal about themselves.

  Ultimately, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Is there any reason why we need to identify users under their respective ages of majority, for the purpose of writing an encyclopedia? --Slowking Man 21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I agree wholeheartedly with Slowking. I think most user categories are pretty pointless and do little or nothing to help build an encyclopaedia anyway, but at least the vast majority of them are harmless. This one is potentially dangerous and real world concerns trump issues of policy and process. Actually, I'd be much happier if the WP leadership just went ahead and banned this category outright. --Folantin 21:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, process does trump policy. >Radiant< 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• No offense, but I don't think citing an essay you just made up two months ago (and without input from the vast majority of the community) really helps your argument much. --Cyde Weys 01:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, but that's false. We can vote until the cows come home to insert POV material into an article, but that doesn't make it acceptable. While some policies are generally considered less weighty or more open to interpretation then others (for instance, NPOV is "non-negotiable" and a Foundation issue, while IAR tends to have widely varying applicability), and process is, at its best, a method for properly analyzing and implementing policy, the simple act of following a process cannot override policy. Process can and does arrive at the wrong outcome at times, which is why IAR and forums such as DRV exist. --Slowking Man 03:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Undelete. I will admit to having mixed feelings about this one. I understand Cyde's position, but disagree with it. The fact that a given user is a child is useful information for dealing with that user and understanding their perspective. Merely being a child is different from giving away personal information or engaging in inappropriate conduct. There is a continuum for protecting children between "doing nothing" and "removing all reference to users who might be children". Myself and others have argued at length (e.g. WT:CHILD) that policy should allow users to self-identify as children while simultaneously discouraging/preventing children from disclosing personal information. Others are against allowing self-identification. Unfortunately, no position on this issue has reached consensus. This category is admittedly a step further than a mere statement on a userpage, which is why I have mixed feelings here. Does the benefit of organizing the child Wikipedians outweigh the potential harm of exposing them to predators? I'm not sure. By the numbers, I am sure there are more people interesting in helping/protecting/watching over such users than there are in harming them, but it does make them easier to find for those who might intend harm also. However, I am tipped over to undelete in part because this was a speedy rather than the product of a discussion. Dragons flight 21:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  Discussion can occur while the category is deleted without any potential harm occurring to any child or bad PR to the project. The same is not true inreverse. --FloNight 21:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  I don't see it that way. The argument in reverse is that more children might be harmed by our neglect if no good person is paying attention to what they are doing or takes the time to find them. If it should be ultimately kept, then it is because it is more useful than harmful. I'm not sure it is, but I am sure its existence is not manifestly just one or the other. Given that, I don't believe there is here a compelling reason for speedy deletion to override existing process in this case. Dragons flight 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - WP:IAR. Common sense, please, not bureaucracy. The big bad scary real world is relevant here. For this kind of stuff process is irrelevant, and the Foundation/Jimbo ought to issue a decree banning the existence of something like this ever. A list of child wikipedians is an awful idea. In fact, it's terrifying. The existence of such a category could so easily encourage Wikipedia's younger editors to reveal more personal details apart from their age. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Look, you can't justify acting without consensus by WP:IAR There is no consensus that it is so terrifying, so deletion based on that should not happen. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I'm not too happy with an admin unilaterally overturning a deletion discussion, and I'm afraid that deleting a category to protect people is more a case of moral panic than anything else. For instance, it's probably quite easy to infer a user's age from what topics xe edits and shows interest in. >Radiant< 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  As I stated above, I agree that this is true; it's obviously impossible to make it so that nothing at all can be inferred about a user. However, that doesn't mean we need to make doing so easier. Again, I think this is a good example of BEANS. --Slowking Man 03:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Screw process. I don't need to know who the children are to edit this encyclopaedia and neither do you. Keep deleted. Grace Note 03:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Cyde. Carson 04:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I think I must have had a stroke before I made my previous comment here. I was temporarily blinded by process and policy.... This category is a truly bad idea, no matter how many times it has survived Cfd. Identifying children on a website is not a good idea. --- RockMFR 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, serves no useful purpose, only bad ones. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted and Endorse I see no good purpose for this. Whethere or not someone identifies their age is up to them. If you want this, then create Category:Old Wikipedians and Category:Teen Wikipedians. Oh wait, that would be ageist. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Category:Teenage Wikipedians, Category:Adult Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians born in 1990 etc, ... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Undelete: Amarkov makes a good point in that this already passed categories for deletion. I understand the concern in having this category since it "exposes" children, but if there isn't a policy against children editing Wikipedia, it should be up to them or their parents to have their children identify as such online. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool for parenting. Paul D. Meehan 21:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. While it is easy to imagine this category being used destructively, it is impossible to imagine it ever being helpful. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Any arguments that starts with "because I know better" should never actually be spoken aloud. Or on text, or whatever. I'm unclear on why all these dissenting voices failed to pipe up on the actual discussion for deletion, but that would have been the place for them to have made their opinons felt. Bad idea? Maybe, but that's just one mans's opinon and being an admin doesn't mean yout opinon (and willingness to mash the button) count for more than anyone else's. - brenneman 00:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is one of those cases when I struggle to say, "endorse closure" because I really don't like out of process actions ... but seriously, we don't need this stuff. WP:IAR, keep it deleted. BigDT 04:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• In the strongest terms, keep this deleted - come on, people, really ... Metamagician3000 06:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I'm not exactly thrilled with the way this ended up on DRV, but let's be honest - this probably would have wound up here one way or the other, to overturn a keep or a delete decision. As to what I think of the category - I'm undecided how far we should be able to take the ban on "identifying personal information". Perhaps some personal info might be allowed on an editor's user page. But that is a far cry from having a fully automated list of every child on Wikipedia. A category would generate such a list, and that list is far too dangerous to be floating around cyberspace. Quack 688 14:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin - note the complete lack of any real argument by the keep deleted parties regarding why legitimate CfDs could be overturned by one person. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin - note the real concerns of those wanting deletion - and the complete lack of any substantive (non process) argument for undeleting. No one is argument this is useful, many see it as potentialy very dangereous. The consensus is clear.--Doc^g 15:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (edit conflict- I agree with Doc Glasgow above). This is far too important an issue to be decided by a handful of random users who happened to notice it on CfD. The outcome of those debates was "no consensus", not a ringing endorsement of this category. As far as I can see, the first debate involved a grand total of eight editors, one of whom made the nonsensical comment "Keep per norm" (AFAIK no "norm" was involved in the argument and the nominator proposed "delete"). Issues of this magnitude should not be decided this way. As I've said, I'm not even happy about this debate here. This should go straight to the top. It's just not worth risking children's safety in the real world for the sake of some trivial category which has no value in building an encyclopaedia. If ever any incident was to occur as a result of keeping this category, Wikipedia would almost certainly be sued out of existence too. This is a case for "Ignore All Rules" if there ever was one. --Folantin 15:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you mean, no substantiative argument? The fact that people disagree with you on whether it should be deleted is a substantiative argument. Why must we show a consensus to keep a category once it's been deleted, regardless of how justified the deletion is? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and to Folantin, if it's too important to be decided by a handful of people in a CfD, why is it not too important to be decided by one person with the power to delete things? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Any page that has been kept (either explicitly or through non consensus) at an XfD should not be speedily deleted by anybody. The only exceptions to this are proven legal issues (e.g. copyright) or WP:OFFICE actions by official representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation acting in their official capacity. That one user feels their subjective opinion that something might be against a proposed policy trumps consensus makes me wonder about their suitability as an administrator. Thryduulf 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Utter nonsense. Yes, the page was deleted 'out of process' - but it it here to see whether that deletion was a good idea or not. Most think it was, and we've given very strong reasons. All we have had back is process wonking. Please, fight the silly rules battle on some other issue - not this FFS! If you think Wikipedia is a better, healthier, page with a category like this, then, by all means argue for undeletion. But really, so far no argument has even been attempted as to why this is a good thing. If the speedy bothers you, forget the speedy; the CfD was a quirky crazy result - review that (or would you rather I opened a separate DRV on that issue?). Just answer the basic question - do you think that undeleting a list that enables anyone to quickly find and identify children is beneficial to Wikipedia??? --Doc^g 21:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not a silly rules battle. It's called you are deleting things without a consensus to do so. Consensus is not an artifact, constructed from the rules to inhibit things. It expresses what the community as a whole wants, instead of whichever person happened to stumble on it and speedy delete it. This reminds me of the person who blamed the fact that people were disagreeing with him on the RfA process. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:IAR, which if it were ever applicable, is in this case. This category has a significant possibility of hurting both real people and the encyclopedia, and keeping it doesn't seem to help building the encyclopedia at all. Mak (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... WP:IAR says to ignore process, policies and guidelines. The issue is that you are ignoring consensus, which IAR does not justify. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, it says "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." In this case, "the rules" is that you have to follow a non-consensus on a !vote regarding something which could easily harm Wikipedia. Harming Wikipedia makes it difficult for me to improve or maintain Wikipedia. See how that works? Mak (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You can't just overrule what others think. The only time when you can is with Foundation level issues, which this is not. In other cases, you must listen to others, not just overrule them because of a percieved good. That's how Wikipedia works. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted because it's just not helpful to us, or to them, to have a big list out there of which of us are children. NO. Antandrus (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Amarkov makes highly persuasive points but ultimately this review seems misguided. No argument has been made to suggest hw this category served any positive purpose. A readily available list identifying the youngest members of the community to potential predators is unacceptable. The risk of it being abused is a real one and I see no reason to take a chance on so serious an issue. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Out of process early closure was reverted, this review will run 5 days as prescribed in Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. ~ trialsanderrors 05:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • trialsanderrors is of course correct, and I apologise for being an ass and not keeping up to date with all the relevant policy. Hiding Talk 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Even having a list like this is scary, created by an unregistered user [1] in the first place. We simply do not need a list singling out minors under the age of 13. Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. --Dakota 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, Amarkov may be happy to tempt fate but I don't think we should. Proto::► 09:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I don't particulartly agree with Cyde on deleting this ad hoc. But it has been deleted, and I haven't seen any compelling arguments on why we should have this re-instated. I'm personally voting on the article itself and not in the manner it was removed. I don't necessarily subscribe to the News of the Screws style hysteria that there is a peadophile round every corner, but that doesn't mean that this page could be misused. And if there is no positive use for this page then I can only be swayed by the fact it could be misused. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Not helpful. Tempting fate. Gathers too much information in one place, though there are other ways of tracking down this information. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life#Age_groups anyone? Those will need to go as well. Carcharoth 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete per brenneman (and others). -- DS1953 ^talk 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. While I completely respect the democratic nature of Wikipedia as well as despise censorship, I think this falls under an issue of safety. I agree with many of the other naysayers: this category could be used as a dangerous tool by predators. We shouldn't make it easy for them. Valley2city 02:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to attempt to keep my mouth shut on this, but the long line of knee-jerk "keep deleted so that predators don't use it" responses is driving me nuts. Can we have a nice long think about the chain of logic here:

1. The "predator" has to exist.
2. They then have to come to this category.
3. They then have to locate a target from this list.
4. They then have to contact/groom/whatever that target.
5. That target has to do raise no concern here on wikipedia.
6. Logical and gruesome conclusion reached.

Considering that: The incidence of predation is actually very low, that there is strong selection bias here on wikipedia for those who are highly computer literate, the very open nature of talk pages, and that there is another environment that is target rich and almost totally unmonitored, this is a tempest in a tea cup of a grand nature. Sure, it's possible that something could go wrong, but some realistic assesment of the risk needs to be taken place, and I'm sure seeing a dearth of that. There are ways where you are literally thousand of times more likely to die that get ignored, there's no rational reason to steam ahead without talking about this rather than mashing the delete button and lining up the "me too!s". If it's so bloody important then the foundation can come down off the mountain and give us some stone tablets. If it's not, than let the debate occur in some forum where we might actually get rational input.

brenneman 03:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's very disappointing that you dismiss all of the arguments against your position as not rational. It almost looks like discussion would have been pointless anyway; if you consider all of the opposing arguments to be irrational, well, you're not going to make any step towards a compromise. Frankly, this justifies why action had to be taken; discussion was stalemated, with one side not listening at all to the other. --Cyde Weys 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's absurd logic. If I pick a random POV pusher, they are almost certain to be ignoring completely people who disagree. Is that a justification for an admin to intervene and lock in their POV? Of course not. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "Tempting fate" is not a rational argument. It provides nothing in the way of context, has no attempt at assessing the risk:reward ratio, makes no actual progress to determining the scale of (or even the existance of) the underlying problem, it's an emotive response. It's purely visceral, as the majority of these responses are. The disadvantage of this forum is that it lends itself to thoughtless knee jerk voting, and is strongly disincentive to discourse. You've actually explicitly said above that you deleted it because discussion failed. Do we need a stronger argument for undeletion that that? - brenneman 03:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, let's do a risk/reward analysis.

Category:Wikipedians interested in photography

Reward: Wikipedians can find other Wikipedians with similar interests - this helps build a sense of community, and encourages them to work on related articles together

Risk: Someone with an inappropriate interest in photographers can use this information to track down and contact photographers.

In this scenario, the reward is trivial, but so is the risk. That counts as a keep in my book. Compare this to "Child Wikipedians". The reward is the same. But there are proven instances of people tracking down children online, and the consequences are significant.

Trivial reward + Noticeable risk = Delete. Quack 688 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Lip service, but it's a start. Can we have some more details on "proven instances of people tracking down children online" please? Otherwise we're just making hand-wavings about the risk. Go to MySpace and see how long it takes you to find a "target" for Bob's sake. The very first hit in the search above says "im 14. im always bored. i get bored very easy. im single&watever happens happens." Are we actually saying that sexual predators would stop if we didn't make it easy for them? I am sorry, but I see zero attempts to back up any of the claims of "danger danger will robinson" with any evidence. Let's start with just one fact: How many arrests for child sexual predation based upon internet contact were there in the United States in 2006? - brenneman 07:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll play along, just so we don't have to have this discussion again. Yay for Google.

in the U.S. last year there were approximately 4000 cases where law enforcement opened a case involving attempts to entice children into meeting sexual predators offline. [2]

Your turn. Show me a single benefit this category provides that is worth that kind of risk. (Oh, one other comment regarding those links you posted. Road safety isn't our responsibility. MySpace isn't our responsibility. Wikipedia content is our responsibility.) Quack 688 08:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'd normally shay away from "Ask Parry!" as a reliable source, considering that he gets his information from things that "been circling the Internet for the last three or four years", he makes this point:

In the United States alone, there are approximately 29 million teens and children under the age of 18 online. Roughly half are 13 and over. For there to be approximately 4000 annual cases, out of a potential 14.5 million users means your children are pretty safe online.'

I'd be more inclined to go with something like the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children as my source. They have such nuggets as:

• Teenagers girls (13 to 19) are the most likely victims - not "children" per se
• 1 in 7 received a Internet come-on already - with no statistics on how old the "other" party was

It's also got a few other tidbits like:

• There were under 1000 arrests involving victims in the "internet sex crimes against minors" category. [3] in 2000
• The total number of complaints in 2005 was only 2664 [4]

So let's think about it this way: if Ask Parry reckons it's safe based upon his flawed "4000" numbers, how much safer must the internet be based upon the actual much lower numbers? This is a textbook case of reacting without thinking, or looking past the surface. Of course it is possible that something explotation will occur. It's just not likely.

brenneman 08:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, that's not how this works. You wanted to play risk/reward, I agreed. You wanted some figures, I found some. Before we argue over the statistics, it's your turn to move. Show me the reward that we get from having an easily accessible list of children on Wikipedia. Then we can all decide if that reward is worth the risk or not. Quack 688 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete: At this point, this is a matter of policy. No decent reasons have been made to keep the category. Brendan Alcorn 08:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Is that is the case Why did you vote undelete? 09:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and list. Something that survived XfD shouldn't be speedied, and especially not by an admin who'd participated on the "losing" side of that XfD. If it's such a bad idea (and I'm not disputing that), then it should be easy to gather a consensus in favor of deletion -- which also happens to be the proper procedure. If it's an emergency that justifies ignoring all rules (and I can see an argument for that), then it should at least be done by an admin who does not appear to be suffering a conflict of interest -- that's an abuse of admin powers, and I don't throw that phrase around lightly. Shimeru 09:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Fuck process and keep deleted; those who don't agree might as well read WP:CHILD and about Wikipedia's constant endeavour to protect children's privacy. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Given the real and repeated incidents that have come up on AN/I over the past year involving users who were either real or pretend children giving out personal information and/or trying to engage other real or pretend kids in conversation, keep deleted. I'm a process wonk, but the rationale for reacting to those users — this puts the encyclopedia in peril, as well as any children involved, for no clear benefit — holds here. I think Cyde is being extremely high-handed, but in this particular case he's right. Nandesuka 14:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - should have been speedied on sight. I am voting here as an ordinary user, and not as either board member of the foundation, nor in my traditional community capacity. This vote should not be viewed as precedent for broader issues, nor as a "Jimbo said...". My opinion here should be taken on its own merits. I oppose the creation of all inflammatory categories and userboxes, and my view of what is inflammatory is quite broad. Here, we are not democrats, republicans, children, adults, etc. Here we are wikipedians. The obvious additional dangers of a category like this, both from a REAL and PR point of view, are additional factors weighing in favor of deletion. --Jimbo Wales 15:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as we should not let process or policy stand in the way of doing the Right Thing. That's the essence of IAR. Those arguing for overturn and restoration have not demonstrated a clear benefit of this category and have not addressed the clear risks that have been delineated. Those arguing for overturn and restoration seem to be standing on process flaws. consensus cannot, in the end, overturn doing what is right. Also, per ordinary citizen Jimbo Wales. But it would be nice if the Foundation would rearticulate principles in this case.... not that we NEED to wait for them to do so, as the Right Thing is obvious. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm sorry this was deleted outside process, but would have argued strong delete if I had known about this category. This has a relatively low risk of danger to any one category member, true, but all those risks add up in terms of risks to the Wikipedia. Even one member getting hurt or even threatened will cause terrible public relations damage to the Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I can see no possible encyclopedic benefit to this category - unlike, say, the above mentioned photographers category, which could be quite useful - "Hey Jane, I understand you're a photographer hobbyist, what do you think of the photo of X I put up on this article, and can you take me a shot of Y for that article?" Unlike skilled photographers, there is nothing that children can do in terms of writing an encyclopedia that adults with childish interests can not. Adults can and do play Pokemon, and even Candyland. Note that child editors can NOT rely on other members of this category to be children, so this can not be used for socialization. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)