- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. The issue at stake here is obviously very important, and a consensus decision (or directive from ArbCom/Jimbo) to remove this userfied userbox would not be unreasonable. For the moment, though, the expressed consensus is that this content is not sufficiently troublesome or dangerous to children's safety such that deletion is warranted. Xoloz 15:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Per the ArbCom ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy, and especially, this subsection. Cool Blue talk to me 22:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.
Last I checked there were literally tens of thousands of middle schools, and that's only in the United States. Why would that be personally identifying information? - Amarkov moo! 23:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because Reasonable measures which forestall the drama associated with interactions between naive children, adult predators, and sting operations by law enforcement are appropriate. This also is a tag for sexual predators on Wikipedia.
Cool Blue
talk to me
23:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. I still disagree that it should be deleted, but I at least understand the reason it was nominated. I don't care that much, though. - Amarkov moo! 23:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The ages we are talking about are 13 ± 2. We don't need to make it easier for pedophiles to find their prey, unlike that massive pile of vanispamcruftisement we get mistaken for. Also per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Category:Child Wikipedians. MER-C 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep widely used userbox, deleting those popular boxes would undermine stability of userpages since mostly they are directly transcluded. There is no evidence that this box itself has caused any harm. Teenager Wikidrama is unlikely, Wikipedia isn't myspace. Wooyi Talk to me? 03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No obvious reason why it should be deleted - I doubt that pedophiles need a userbox to identify the youngsters anyway. I don't think deleting it is a particularly useful exercise. Orpheus 05:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Cool Blue's argument is respectable, but Wikipedia is not myspace. Besides, should we then delete any userpage containing statements such as "Hi, I am in middle school"? Or any references to likes and dislikes that may point to the user's age? Slamming mass-deletes from above will hardly help kids here. Stammer 08:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Let's avoid "you deleted my box" wikidrama here. Also you might have noticed that the ruling does not create policy but referred the entire thing to consensus finding (which proved to be impossible to find, so should be using common sense here). If the userbox had a neat field for age, name, and location, then yes, but so... Charon X/ talk 11:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Unfortunately, the deletion of this category is assuming apathy.-- WaltCip 15:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure where I stand on this. On the one hand, this will make it easier for responsible users to keep track of young users and react swiftly if they post any identifying information. Furthermore, deleting the box will not substantially reduce the number of middle schoolers using it. On the other hand, it is conceivable that it would make it easier for pedophiles to track such children. JoshuaZ 19:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Umm... pedophiles use IRC and MySpace, not Wikipedia.-- WaltCip 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Off topic, IRC is pretty obsolete among teenagers except those computer geeks :-).
Wooyi
Talk to me?
01:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- We've had self-identifying pedophiles here. To some extent the only reason we haven't had a scandal yet is that we have been lucky. Although I agree, the non-social nature of Wikipedia makes such problems much less likely to occur. JoshuaZ 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. The issue at stake here is obviously very important, and a consensus decision (or directive from ArbCom/Jimbo) to remove this userfied userbox would not be unreasonable. For the moment, though, the expressed consensus is that this content is not sufficiently troublesome or dangerous to children's safety such that deletion is warranted. Xoloz 15:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Per the ArbCom ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy, and especially, this subsection. Cool Blue talk to me 22:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.
Last I checked there were literally tens of thousands of middle schools, and that's only in the United States. Why would that be personally identifying information? - Amarkov moo! 23:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because Reasonable measures which forestall the drama associated with interactions between naive children, adult predators, and sting operations by law enforcement are appropriate. This also is a tag for sexual predators on Wikipedia.
Cool Blue
talk to me
23:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. I still disagree that it should be deleted, but I at least understand the reason it was nominated. I don't care that much, though. - Amarkov moo! 23:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The ages we are talking about are 13 ± 2. We don't need to make it easier for pedophiles to find their prey, unlike that massive pile of vanispamcruftisement we get mistaken for. Also per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Category:Child Wikipedians. MER-C 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep widely used userbox, deleting those popular boxes would undermine stability of userpages since mostly they are directly transcluded. There is no evidence that this box itself has caused any harm. Teenager Wikidrama is unlikely, Wikipedia isn't myspace. Wooyi Talk to me? 03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No obvious reason why it should be deleted - I doubt that pedophiles need a userbox to identify the youngsters anyway. I don't think deleting it is a particularly useful exercise. Orpheus 05:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Cool Blue's argument is respectable, but Wikipedia is not myspace. Besides, should we then delete any userpage containing statements such as "Hi, I am in middle school"? Or any references to likes and dislikes that may point to the user's age? Slamming mass-deletes from above will hardly help kids here. Stammer 08:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Let's avoid "you deleted my box" wikidrama here. Also you might have noticed that the ruling does not create policy but referred the entire thing to consensus finding (which proved to be impossible to find, so should be using common sense here). If the userbox had a neat field for age, name, and location, then yes, but so... Charon X/ talk 11:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Unfortunately, the deletion of this category is assuming apathy.-- WaltCip 15:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure where I stand on this. On the one hand, this will make it easier for responsible users to keep track of young users and react swiftly if they post any identifying information. Furthermore, deleting the box will not substantially reduce the number of middle schoolers using it. On the other hand, it is conceivable that it would make it easier for pedophiles to track such children. JoshuaZ 19:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Umm... pedophiles use IRC and MySpace, not Wikipedia.-- WaltCip 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Off topic, IRC is pretty obsolete among teenagers except those computer geeks :-).
Wooyi
Talk to me?
01:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- We've had self-identifying pedophiles here. To some extent the only reason we haven't had a scandal yet is that we have been lucky. Although I agree, the non-social nature of Wikipedia makes such problems much less likely to occur. JoshuaZ 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.