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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Thatcher131

[edit] Brief history

For background purposes:

I wrote the first draft of this proposal in response to several issues, including incidents reported on the noticeboard of editors claiming to be children writing things on their talk pages like, "I am a cute 11 year old, send me a picture to be my friend;" the case of a 30 year old man making age-inappropriate comments to a 15 year old girl; and the realization that Wikipedia apparently has no mechanism to follow COPPA, a US law prohibiting web sites from collecting personal information from children without parental consent. Of course, Wikipedia allows anyone to edit regardless of age, but Wikipedia should not be used as a tool for child predators to locate and make contact with potential victims. So my original intent was to prevent any user who claimed to be a child from posting personal information that would include or lead to his/her real life identity. This version more or less follows my original intent.

After discussion, I decided this proposal was pointed in the wrong direction. Any conversations between a child and a predator would occur off-Wiki, including disclosure of personal info; the key would be to prevent editors from being identified as children in the first place. So I wrote a second version that simply stated that editors could not claim to be younger than 13. Of course, users do not have to disclose an age at all. Preventing editors from claiming an age under 13 would prevent children from advertising themselves as such (thus making it harder for predators to identify and contact them) and would prevent predators from falsely claiming to be children to lure in real children. This second version would also be easier to deal with administratively than to allow age disclosures and then try to prevent a wide range of other releases of personal info.

Update I believe I have stated in various places that whether or not COPPA applies to Wikipedia has no direct influence on whether or not we should adopt this or a similar policy. I originally framed the issue in this light, Wikipedia wishes to act in the spirit of the COPPA statute and, apart from any legal ramifications, to protect those users who choose to identify themselves as being under the age of 13. COPPA provides a philosophical framework and a rationale for choosing a particular age as a cut-off point.
I don't see how this is relevant to the issue of whether or not this proposal should become an official guideline or policy. We have adopted many guidelines and policies that are not required by law but which facilitate smooth running of the site (i.e. NPA) or that prevent activities we consider undesireable (SPAM and external links policies, for example).

[edit] Unfortunate timing

I pretty much stopped paying attention to the discussion as it seemed to have died out. I was unaware of the lengthy and sometimes heated discussion on the talk page. I was personally affected by one poor editing decision, however.

On 21 September, Herostratus notified everyone who had previously commented on the proposal to return to the talk page and summarize their position, an informal poll, I guess. Between 20:17, when I was notified, and 22:40 when I commented, Radiant! (talk · contribs) drastically rewrote the proposal, changing it from an enforceable policy to friendly advice [2]. I'm sure Radiant's motives were good, but the effect was utter confusion, with editors who were answering Hero's request for comment seeing a completely different version than Hero was asking for comment on. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Wheel warring?

The arbitrators should consider the history of the page during the poll carefully, although I am sure others will provide more detailed evidence.


Rejected?

Regarding the placement of a "rejected" tag on the proposal, this seems like an act that will likely discourage further debate, especially by people who find out about proposal and wander over to comment on it. So, in the context of a debate over whether the policy is rejected or not, it seems the rejected tag should not be applied until there is consensus to reject. If there is no consensus either way, it should not be labeled "rejected" just as it should not be labeled as an accepted policy or guideline. So I agree with Hero's removal of the rejected label even though his manner of doing so may have constituted inappropriate use of admin tools.


Another possibly problematic edit
(Radiant has explained to me that he objected to the wording of John's first post on the RfC page but not the revised wording of the second posting.)

[edit] Discussion at the noticeboard

In response to the suggestion that this proposal is a solution in search of a problem, I note that several discussions related to this proposal have occurred on the administrators' noticeboards, in addition to the proposal's talk page. Although the noticeboard contains some discussion of whether or not this is policy, it also seems that removal of personal information by self-identified minors is performed routinely without controversy.

Current discussion (update link when archived}

[edit] Evidence presented by Radiant

[edit] Proposal writing

Well, I'll keep this short. Usually, when we write a proposal, we ask for feedback and change the proposal to address the concerns people may have with it. That's not what happened here; on the talk page of WP:CHILD, the concerns expressed by several people were basically ignored. I attempted a rewrite at some point to address several concerns, which was intended as a constructive approach to reaching a compromise. This was under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Protecting_children's_privacy#New draft. Several people expressed their assent and dissent. This attempted compromise was reverted twice on grounds that it "was too different" and "made discussion impossible", then split to a different page.

In my opinion, the reason this proposal has no consensual support is the fact that people are unwilling to make a compromise over it.

[edit] Legal angle

Part of the proposal is based upon the COPPA law. However, law-related matters should be left to the Board or Brad Patrick, who are actually trained in law.

[edit] Moral angle

If we want Wikipedia to take on the moral duty of protecting children, the WP:CHILD proposal is arguably not sufficient for that. A more effective (though not necessarily desirable) way of doing so would be mandatory identification upon registration, so that we can in effect know who the children are, as opposed to relying on children to tell us that they are in fact children. Measures against people under a certain age merely encourage people to lie about their age.

[edit] Existing practice

For a third angle, as Anonemouse says, basing a pol/guide on existing practice is a good thing. However, the crucial difference between WP:CHILD and existing practice is that WP:CHILD calls for preventative blocking of children in certain circumstances, whereas existing practice (to my knowledge) only goes as far as removing personal information.

[edit] Evidence presented by AnonEMouse

[edit] Proposal already seems to be a good description of actual practice.

  1. WP:AN/I "Another minor with personal information"
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive139#Another really young editor
  3. WP:AN/I "Whatever the users' motivation, I support the blocking/redacting of "minors who reveal Too Much Personal Information" on sight." - Nandesuka

It should be clear that when an alleged minor posts allegedly personal information, current practice already is to remove it. Look at the first 2 AN/I items: that's exactly what was done. In each case, one person posts "here is a minor posting personal info", and one administrator removes that info from the page, with little discussion and no objection. The third is merely a comment, rather than actual action, but a pretty strong comment as to how a rather influential and respected admin would behave.

Now I don't know how proposals become policy or guidelines around here; I even asked Radiant! once. However, I watched with great interest how Radiant!, supported by User:Centrx, successfully marked Wikipedia:Notability as a guideline mostly on the basis of "A good description of actual practice is by definition a guideline." in the face of a revert war and more editors in the opposition. (Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Guideline?) Being admins, they presumably knew what they were doing. For what it's worth, I do support that action. But, ignoring all the business about voting, polls, reverts, consensus, et cetera, per Radiant!'s own arguments, this proposal should at least be a guideline, since it's mostly writing down existing practice by admins. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I notice that Thatcher131 already writes most of this above, which I missed when skimming his long statement. But I'll still leave my evidence, since it's more focused; please note that the longest one T131 mentions above, Editor who self-identifies... isn't quite as relevant, since that ended up with a block for the editor not actualy being underage, but pretending to be, with a large sock puppet farm. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. WP:AN/I#Another underage sock farmWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive59#Another underage sock farm - currently ongoing. Another instance - admins see underage personal info, delete. This one has more discussion, and blocking is proposed and questioned, though the deletion is not questioned. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    Fixed link--Konst.ableTalk 14:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Youth Foundation rules

  1. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Youth_Foundation#Privacy at Wikipedia
  2. Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Youth_Foundation#Privacy

Similarly consistent with the proposal. Less weight, since this seems to be merely a project, rather than admin action, but clearly consistent with the proposal being a guideline. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COPPA and Wikipedia

While I am not a lawyer, Ral315 seems to be right on his #COPPA does not apply to Wikipedia section, below, but he didn't actually give evidence beyond our own article on COPPA. I can do so: COPPA FAQs from the FTC quoth:

18. Are websites run by nonprofit entities subject to the Rule?
The Act and the Rule expressly state that they apply to commercial websites and not to nonprofits that would otherwise be exempt from coverage under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Thus, in general, most non-profits are not subject to the Rule. However, nonprofits that operate for the profit of their for-profit members may be subject to the Rule. See FTC v. California Dental Association 526 U.S. 756 (1999), for additional guidance on when nonprofits are subject to FTC jurisdiction. Although true nonprofits are not subject to COPPA, we encourage them to set an example by posting privacy policies and providing the protections set forth in COPPA to children providing personal information at their sites.

So we should probably strike the section that we have to do this based on COPPA. We do, however, have to do this because it's the right thing to do. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Behavior of Herostratus

I'm not sure what can be presented as "evidence" here, other than the actual text of Hero's edits that so many find problems with.

  1. (Where we stand, a summary to date)
  2. (Where we stand II: arguments)
  3. (Accepted?)

Please note that they are civil, well argued, cogent, and serve admirably to summarize what is otherwise a large and incoherent discussion that no one can make head or tail of. While Hero has a point of view, he is doing his best to be neutral in the summaries, and he is the only one even attempting to do as much. He spent a lot of effort on this. The opposition seems to prefer to let the proposal collapse not due to making better arguments, but through insisting on chaos. Unorganized information is just noise; the whole point of an encyclopedia project is to organize information so that it's useful, surely we are allowed to do the same in building our own policies. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by BigNate37

[edit] Herostratus acted in disregard for existing policy

By his own admission[11], Herostratus' motives for the tag for the state of the proposal were not in agreement with policy, which I had already pointed out in the same section of Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy [12]. Note also that in making that statement, he removed three comments from two other users. In response, Radiant! and I refuted his logic and I requested Herostratus address the comments which used existing policy to support the use of the rejected tag[13]. Herostratus instead continued to use logic which ignored policy[14]. We do not create policy in an effort to improve public relations or legal position for the Wikimedia Foundation.

[edit] Herostratus acted in conflict of interest

Herostratus controlled discussion on the talk page of the proposal, ignoring, refactoring[15], or archiving most of the discussion that was not in agreement with the way Herostratus wants this proposal to develop. He constructed a list of users who have commented[16] in an attempt to polarise the debate and marginalise opposition. Thryduulf explained how policy justified the {{rejected}} tag[17], which was by my count at least the third time arguements had been made against the proposal based upon policy. Herostratus states "I personally would say that protecting the Wikipedia from harm is, in my view, a very very strong argument. I would think it would be on editors opposing this policy to prove quite firmly that rejection of this policy could not expose the Wikipedia to significant harm."[18] which shows one of his attempts to change the direction of discussion away from the policy-based arguments many have made against him.

Herostratus misquoted Wikipedia:Consensus and marginalised the arguements of myself and three others by calling us "vocal and unreconciled folk"[19]. Herostratus does not acknowledge the points of others but rather changes the topic[20]. Instead of answering requests for direct responses to valid, repeated concerns, he dismisses those concerns as vocal and unreconciled. This is a slap in the face to any attempts at consensus building. The title of that edit, "Moving on", suggests that Herostratus does not intend to address any of the points brought against his statments nor the requests made of him. In that edit he tries to hamper further discussion of comments not added by himself by adding the section "Comments and objections to the process outlined immediately above" at the bottom of his edit. Over the next hour or so, Herostratus archives the discussion, compiles another list of users who have commented, and summarises pages of discussion with single-sentence answers. He misquoted my comment (which was about the discussion, not the proposal)[21] instead of taking my more recent comments to which he could not adequately respond. Thryduulf asked him not to do this[22].

This all demonstrates how Herostratus controlls the direction of discussion and presides over it as if he owns the talk page, while at the same time supporting a position which he has not defended against policy-backed arguements. This is a conflict of interest. I have not even addressed the fact that he edited the then-protected proposal using his sysop bit while being doubly involved as discussion coordinator and proposal supporter when he could have instead asked a number of uninvolved administrators to intervene.

[edit] Evidence presented by Ral315

[edit] COPPA does not apply to Wikipedia

First, and foremost, I wasn't involved in this debate other than presenting arguments such as the one below on the AN when discussions arose. I have some memory of perusing the talk page of this proposed policy, but it doesn't appear that I edited it (please correct me if I'm wrong).

It should be noted that COPPA "applies to the online collection of personal information by persons or entities under U.S. jurisdiction from children under 13 years of age. It details what a website operator must include in a privacy policy, when and how to seek verifiable consent from a parent or guardian, and what responsibilities an operator has to protect children's privacy and safety online including restrictions on the marketing to those under 13."

We do not collect any personal information from users. All that is collected is an e-mail address (optional), a password, and browser information (which browser you're using, IP addresses, etc.), none of which is personal information. Privacy policies are a foundation issue that can't be debated or edited at the community level. We don't market to anyone, and we don't participate in any activities that might require consent.

Finally, "most of the terms of COPPA apply only to websites and organizations operated for commercial purposes and usually exempt recognized non-profit organizations." So, while we shouldn't just leave personal information of children exposed, because we can, the policy is a moot point, and doesn't apply to us.

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Herostratus

[edit] OK

User:BigNate37 is certainly correct. I did act in conflict of interest. But, you know, I don't really have that big of a stake in the proposal, its outcome, or whether or not it's fit policy or not. Some, but not much. My interest in the page was excited primarily by what I saw as some editors acting in a non-optimal manner which I didn't much care for. My extensive summarizing and editing on the talk page was entirey to create information. Information is always an antidote to confusion. I had to summarize since polls I had no reason to believe that either polls or new input were going to be permitted, so that was one way available to try to mine ordered information from what was becoming an increasingly chaotic situation.

[edit] Confused

I'm a little confused by the process here. First this was presented as a case with no involved parties, asking the ArbCom simply to decide on what was the proper state for the proposal (which is outside the ArbCom's brief, but OK with me if the ArbCom wants to take it). At least two ArbCom members accepted it on this basis. Then somebody added an Involved Parties section. Now some editors are going into prosecute-Herostratus mode. I find this odd since I didn't see the slightest sign of an attempt at mediation, an RfC, or anything of that sort. I thought that before you open an ArbCom case seeking sanctions against an editor there was supposed to be some prior steps. Naturally mediation would have been fine by me. Actually, I did contact the Mediation Cabal on the tag issue. They got back to me about a week later, by which time the point was moot, due to my edit-warring on a protected page. And would have been moot in the opposite sense if I hadn't done that - I think the fact that it took the Mediation Cabal a week to begin considering the case makes my point about the problem of tagging and protecting proposals as Rejected.

Anyway... I don't want to get into a lemon-squeezing party with my colleagues, so I'm not really going to present any more "evidence" here. The ArbCom has the page history and the diffs already presented.

  • FWIW: I made the request for mediation (diff here) on Sept 19 (to the Mediation Cabal rather than for formal mediation - dunno if that was right), accepted by the other involved party, taken up by the Mediation Cabal a few days later (can't find exact diff), canceled by me as then moot around Sept 24th. Herostratus 22:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I want to make clear here: I'm not providing diffs which could tend to get other editors in hot water with the ArbCom, on the understanding that sanctions against individual editors are not at issue. If my understanding is wrong, I'd like to be so informed, and I'd ask the ArbCom to remand the case to mediation, which has not been tried. Herostratus 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by DogNewTricks

[edit] Discrimination

If being under a certain age makes it “against policy” to state your age, and other people who are above that certain age can state their age, it seems like discrimination to me. Wikipedia is not a chat service, and should not be used like one. I think stating your age, no matter what age you are, is pointless when it comes to wikipedia. However, it is people’s prerogative. It is not wikipedia’s place to correct morals and keep everyone safe. There shouldn’t be a campaign to “stop minors from admitting they are minors”.-- ¢² Connor K.   15:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note by Radiant

WP:CHILD is being used as rationale for speedily deleting certain categories [23]. This action was disputed on grounds of perceived age discrimination, led to a small wheel war here and is presently under discussion here. In other words, the unclear status of WP:CHILD is causing strife, and having it clearly accepted or rejected would be desirable.

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.