The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was No consensus to change
Reviving
I now realize some flaws in our current "block 'em until they're 13" system:
- First and foremost, we have no way of telling whether what they say is true. It's the Internet; people lie. For example, if I go onto my userpage and say I'm 9 (it is hopefully quite obvious that I'm not), would someone automatically block me? Or are we using some kind of random intuition to determine whether I'm telling the truth?
- Even after their block has expired, they are still violating the Wikia ToS, having entered false information at registration.
- Is it really our responsibility to enforce the Wikia ToS?
(By the way, Wikia's ban on underage users is required by law, but violating that ban is not a violation of the law. I'm pretty confident in this, so look it up and let me know if I'm wrong.)
I agree that entering false information and violating the Wikia ToS is unethical, but I don't think this an acceptable way to handle such actions. FB100Z • talk • contribs 06:06, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm... you do have some points there. Also, what does the law actually say? That you cannot make an account on a website when you are under 13? Why is this rule in place? If it is to stop people from giving out personal information, weren't we all told when we signed up that making an account actually reveals less information about yourself? Jag 06:14, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, now that I think about it, it is illegal what they're doing, since they formed a binding contract with Wikia that they did not keep...Of course, I might be wrong. FB100Z • talk • contribs 06:23, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- And yes, it is COPPA law that tells (nearly) all sites to forbid under-13s. This is for the privacy and safety of children. By the way, Wikia collects e-mail addresses, so...yeah. FB100Z • talk • contribs 06:25, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- It's a US law that Wikia has to follow due to the possibility of its site being used to share information and it being centered in the US. I find that the underage users tend to be more problematic-this is not always the case, but is often true that the underage users are the ones who will screw things up.
BobaFett
Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)
- There's one Here in particular which some admins won't block. And I keep implying to them they need to.:P Cligra, who is an admin there, blocked Flex, but this other kid keeps unblocking him. These children are too young to understand the meaning of a "Term of Agreement" and just check off agree. They should really get the heck off Wikia. Skdhjf(Talk!) 14:59, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- So should people who think that they can belittle others and treat them as if they are worthless due to their "lesser" age.
BobaFett
Talk MOCPages Group (Click)
- Sure, editors in general (not just children) can be problematic, but as long as their actions are in good faith, we shouldn't get on their case too hard. FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:24, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
Allow me outline a typical situation here that supports my first bullet point even more strongly.
- An underage user joins Wikia and enters false information for his birth date. He is not particularly skilled at grammar or spelling, and other users notice this.
- He innocently posts on his userpage that he is, say, 11.
- An admin sees his userpage, assumes that what he says is true, and blocks him.
- The user tries to retract the statement. However, the admin does not believe him and refuses to end the block.
Here are some questions to ask yourself:
- How could the admin tell that the user is under 13? The only evidence he used for his conclusion is poor English and the user's own claim.
- How come the admin believed him the first time, but not the second? This is one thing that gets me. It's almost like the admin is selectively believing information just to keep his trigger finger content.
FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:24, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- I think that something else we should take into consideration when blocking is that this really isn't our concern. If Wikia wants to sit watching Brickipedia all day and blocking underaged users, they are free to do so. However, I don't understand how it fits into the scope of administrator actions here to enforce the policies of Wikia (to clarify, not all users here are bound by COPPA - I am from Canada, where no such law applies, as an example). If they aren't being disruptive and completely immature, don't block them. Simple as that. ajr 17:30, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- +1. One technical thing though -- it's Wikia that's bound by COPPA, not the users. COPPA is just a law that tells Wikia to make the restriction. FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:33, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- You may not be bound by COPPA yourself-however, when participating on a US site, which is bound by COPPA, you are affected just the same as anyone in the US.
BobaFett
Talk MOCPages Group (Click)
- Clarification: It's Wikia's ToS that binds you, not COPPA law. But this is an itty-bitty detail not really worth arguing about, so...yeah. FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:38, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm not. There are no international laws which govern this, and the only time in which I'd ever need to follow US laws is if I was in the US, which I am thankfully not. This little corner of the interwebs doesn't belong to the US either, nor does this site. Wikia has this as a policy because they are based in the US, but I have no legal obligation to follow it (though not doing so would violate their ToU). ajr 17:39, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, end of legal semantics discussion :3 FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:40, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
Here's my proposal: trash the current system for blocking underage users. !Voting time :) FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:43, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to think it over, but it seems what we're looking at here is a "Don't ask, don't tell" kinda thing (Wow, why did I bring that in...). My question is: Would underage blocked users be unbanned? ex. ......... DANGITT I can't remember this kid's name. But there is my main question I guess... -NBP 20:15, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- JIggy Santos? Flex217? Is it one of those users?
Byzantium 3000![[Special:Editcount/Byzantium 3000|Special:Editcount/Byzantium 3000 edits!]] 20:18, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the idea of blocking such users should continue, and also we should inform Wikia of such activity. Sites that I know of terminate user accounts if they discover that they are under 13. Underage users have a very low maturity level, which means they are vulnerable to give out their address, parents' occupation, etc. Another reason for the continuation of blocking underage users is their grammar, it really does affect Brickipedia. They also create blogposts that are childish. We don't want to bring the LEGO Universe Creation Lab attitude here. •myk 22:52, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Per Mykheh all the way. If you people wish to not block underage users, you will get a strong oppose from me. And, lets say the vote goes through, I will report us to Wikia.:) Skdhjf(Talk!) 01:55, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Good luck with that. But as I said before, it is unfair to apply that label to all underaged contributors. We are well within our rights to block the ones that aren't here to build an encyclopedia, or are too incompetent to. But it really isn't within the scope of admins here to be enforcing Wikia's policies. Go ahead and contact Wikia - if they want to enforce it they can watch this wiki all day themselves. ajr 02:00, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Alright. Thanks for wishing me good luck; although I don't believe in it. Yes it is within the scope. We are using Wikia; why not enforce their legal terms and conditions (Its a legal contract you are bound to when you agree to the conditions.) Skdhjf(Talk!) 02:10, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly, and it is their responsibility to enforce their ToU, not the people who are using the service. It's like working at a museum and forcing people who pay to look at exhibits to be security guards for a few hours - it isn't within our scope of activities as admins. We are here to serve the community, not Wikia's interests.
- On an unrelated legal note, agreeing to a ToU is not a legal document, it is an agreement. The absolute worst that could happen is that your access to the provided service would be indefinitely suspended ajr 02:14, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you keep insisting it isn't within our scope - we create accounts. We create wikis. The last thing we could do is abide by their rules. Isn't there a moral value to this also? If you create an account and put bogus information, it just proves you lack maturity. It may not be validy legal, but you should still abide by their rules if you use their service. Skdhjf(Talk!) 02:25, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- I've explained a good five times now why it isn't in our scope, and I will one more time: As Brickipedian admins, it is not our responsibility to enforce Wikia policy. Simple as that. We are users of the system, we don't run it. If they want to be blocking underaged contributors, let them, but that is hardly something which we should do. As I've also said many a time now, if they are being disruptive, we block them anyways. If they aren't, we don't. But at the very least we shouldn't be blocking them when they say they are 11, and then not unblocking them when they say that they were joking and are actually 13. If we are willing to trust them once, we should be able to trust them again. ajr 02:33, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to leave you to your own ideas, an I'll have my own.:) Let's dismiss this debate so it doesn't turn into a heated arguement, and we don't become enemies of some sort. Skdhjf(Talk!) 02:38, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'm going to keep blocking them regardless of what the outcome is, I'm only following Wikia's terms. If you decide to unblock them afterwards, then it's your problem if anything comes up. But, I don't really look at userpages/blogs anyway so I very rarely see how old anyone is. And that's all I'm saying here because I can't be bothered going through this painful discussion for the millionth time. NightblazeSaber 03:07, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- This post says it all. You can't prove age without legal documents, and we should not be blocking users here who say that they are underaged. Like Rappy says there, block them for other block-able offenses, but not age. Also, NHL, if you do any sysop action in violation of community consensus then your tools can be removed - and we can even do this in the old system of voting too if that would make you feel better. ajr 16:59, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Ooh, you gonna block me for following Wikia's rules now Ajr? Don't forget your tools can be removed too. NightblazeSaber 23:59, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm not, I'm asking that you don't violate community consensus if it exists here. ajr 00:38, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, can we forget the third bullet point for a moment here and focus on the first one? How do we know that what they're saying is true? FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:04, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Like I said, thier maturity level is low. Do you think they'll tell the truth? They will want to be unblocked.
•myk 17:47, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- That is not only displaying a stereotype, but is simply wrong. The RuneScape Wiki (then Wikia's most active wiki), has one user by the name of Calebchiam who became an administrator and checkuser there before he was even 13. He is one of the most mature users I know - and he's only just turned 14. It is completely unfair to categorize all underaged contributors into that bracket. Also, you haven't answered the question - what hard evidence do we have that says they are user 13? If they scan their birth certificate, then we might have grounds to contact Wikia and tell them to do something. ajr 17:52, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- That last comment has me thinking. We should have solid evidence that the user is below the required age before blocking, but the user has just stated that he is below 13- would one above 13 state he is below, when the ToS states one must be over? Like I said, those who are immature may give their real age. Another thought that contradicts my previous statement is that some over 13 users may say they are below for the sake of safety. I'm neutral for now . •myk 18:18, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Like anyone reads internet ToC's :P Kingcjc 18:19, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- We should vote now. Or a little more discussion? •myk 18:25, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to vote, but I will say two things:
- I'm sure many users (incl. myself) joined up under 13.
- It's very annoying having to block an (un-annoying) under 13 year old. (If they are annoying I don't mind) Kingcjc 18:33, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- It was kind of sad when we had to block that nine year old a few weeks ago.....But, "rules" are "rules". Skdhjf(Talk!) 18:36, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Then let's block them once we have solid proof, and word of mouth is not solid proof. A man cannot be convicted of murder just because he said he did it, there must be other evidence brought into the light. So I propose this: Let's block underaged users, just as soon as they send us their birth certificates confirming that they are under 13. ajr 18:43, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Additionally, this entire discussion is to determine whether or not this is a rule that we should use, so don't say that rules are rules when the rule is currently being contested, and definitely do not base your entire argument off of that. ajr 18:44, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
!voting
- Trash the rule per ajr and me. We have no way of telling whether they tell the truth. Maturity does have a direct correlation with age, but it is never accurate to determine age from maturity. FB100Z • talk • contribs 18:56, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Likewise, do not enforce the rule, unless of course they provide hard evidence (birth certificate, immigration reports, etc), in which case I'll personally contact Wikia and let them deal with it. ajr 19:02, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- But how do you know they provided a correct birth certificate? ;) FB100Z • talk • contribs 19:23, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Keep enforcing the rule. Per me, Mykheh, and Nighthawk leader. Skdhjf(Talk!) 19:06, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for being annoying, but what arguments of theirs (and yours) are you referring to? FB100Z • talk • contribs 19:23, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Our statements above the "!voting" header. Skdhjf(Talk!) 19:27, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- I think that he wants specific examples :3 ajr 19:37, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- He'll have to look for them. :) Skdhjf(Talk!) 19:40, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Most of the arguments that you seem to be citing have been shot down...any specifics? FB100Z • talk • contribs 20:18, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Never in the history of Brickipedia, has one of my arguements have been shot down.;) Just look above, and you'll see them.:) Skdhjf(Talk!) 00:04, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Follow the rule. In my opinion, if they say they are underaged, it's their fault. Even if they aren't, they're stupid to say stuff like that. And they should realize that even though it might not be "fair" in a way, they asked for it. Sorry if I sound mean... but it's the truth... and you can refer to this guy. =P
Byzantium 3000![[Special:Editcount/Byzantium 3000|Special:Editcount/Byzantium 3000 edits!]] 19:30, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- But why are we considering their statements to be God's truth if we consider them to be so stupid and immature? FB100Z • talk • contribs 19:38, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Heavy-proof cases - Like if your 99.62% sure they are 652% telling the truth, (or, if they are being idiots anyway), block-away. Kingcjc 19:50, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- If there's over 9000% evidence that they're under 13, then they're probably vandals anyway. FB100Z • talk • contribs 20:03, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Per all above, especially Fudgepie. What kind of 13 year old is going to around saying he's 10 anyway. NightblazeSaber 23:59, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- An immature 13 year old would; thinking he/she could be funny with their joke(s). Skdhjf(Talk!) 00:04, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Here I quote, "but why are we considering their statements to be God's truth if we consider them to be so stupid and immature?" FB100Z • talk • contribs 01:04, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and: since when did we have a policy saying you can't be immature and try to be funny? FB100Z • talk • contribs 01:07, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I would much appreciate it if someone would refute all three of my arguments at the top of the "Reviving" section. FB100Z • talk • contribs 01:09, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
- C'mon...anyone? FB100Z • talk • contribs 00:15, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Well? FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:00, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Is everybody deliberately eliding this? FB100Z • talk • contribs 19:00, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Get rid of the rule. LEGO is primarily for kids, don't ban them. It's not up to us to check what they're doing. - nxt 09:29, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is not whether kids should stay on here; it's whether it's our duty to scare them off. FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:00, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- UltrasonicNXT - Just because LEGO is a kid toy doesn't mean we have to have kids on this site. And most >13 crowd has questionable grammar and attitude issues. (Due to them lacking maturity in some aspects) The point is we create accounts. We use Wikia (For free), why not obey their terms and conditions? If you owned Wikia, wouldn't you want them to obey your restrictions you choose to set? Although this is a cyber community, we should still be moral in our actions. And for those who say they're 13 but aren't, they're just proving that they're immature by their lies. And to those who say "It's Wikia's problem" - Less than 40 Wikia staff don't have time to scan 100,000+ wikis out there. So you think about it. Can't we at least help them out? I also hear this bogus crap above that says: "Unless we have solid proof (I.e immigration reports, Birth Certificates, etc)" blah blah. Do you really think someone would show you a Birth Certificate on the internet?! Its plain stupid! All sites go by trust. Thats it. And if you disobey the rules, you deal with it. And consequences attached. Why do we need proof anyways? If a user says he's lets say nine, but just actually 13 but we dont know it. Block him for Pete's sake. Who cares if it was a joke. They're the one who told it - and also weve never came across a case like that. We dont know who's telling the truth and who's not all the time. And especially today with society's moral standards dwindling, you cant really trust anyone anymore. Also, these rules help protect the younger audience. It protects them from let's say sharing their address easily when a 50 year old stalker asks.:P Skdhjf(Talk!) 18:29, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- It's not about scaring kids off, it's our responsibility to the law. Those who created that law had a reason why they created it (and I don't want to speculate over what they meant with it, I could imagine to keep kids away from too much racial/sexual/religious or other content). It might seem as if we want to scare them away, but we don't, why should we? The more good editors, the better. Samdo994 talk contribs 18:18, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- This is some uphill battle for me :3 (By the way, the intent of COPPA is to protect children from site that collect personal information.) By "scaring kids off," I meant "keeping them off the site" in a sort of humorous way, but I guess it doesn't matter. FB100Z • talk • contribs 18:59, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, I guess. We assume that everybody is telling the truth, unless clear that it's meant ironically/sarcastic (via things like emoticons or evidence from content written). And we aren't able to check if the user lied when entering a false age at registration or somewhere else, we cannot be blamed for this. And yes, this is a wiki for a 'kids' toy', but it's the community system that counts (like on Eurobricks, they even have an age restriction of 18 years even though it's LEGO). There might even be wikis about things like Winnie the Pooh, but even if that is content for children, it's still the community system wiki, so members of the system should stick to the 13 years restriction. Samdo994 talk contribs 15:48, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- "We assume that everybody is telling the truth, unless clear that it's meant ironically/sarcastic (via things like emoticons or evidence from content written)." Although subjectivity is ideal in wiki politics, intuition is not a valid basis for something as serious as blocking. Plus, if we assume everybody is telling the truth, why don't we believe them the second time? FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:00, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- I believe everything in life is based on intuition and trust, even the decision of the court is based on their intuition, they decide if or if not enough evidence is given in a case. And if a user is telling the truth the second time depends on how they stated something the first time. Eg, your statement above, that you might be 9, is clearly not true (to me, at least) when reading the whole content of this discussion. And if I'd say I'm 9, but put a :P behind it, it looks less likely as if I would leave it out. So it depends on what the user sees in the statement. As I said, it's all about trust and intuition. Samdo994 talk contribs 18:12, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Since when was it reliable to determine age only from actions for something as serious as a block? FB100Z • talk • contribs 18:54, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- There isn't any other possibility to determine it over the web, is there? Samdo994 talk contribs 14:02, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Another comment, this time regarding this discussion system - It's possible for a discussion to be closed with no consensus, when both sides have equally strong arguments. In such cases, nothing happens and no change takes place. FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:04, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Get rid of it!-Don't block them for being "under age"! Ban them if they are vandalizing, being idiots, or anything bad! If they are helping and underage, don't ban, seriously! --Things may not be what they seem!!
- It doesn't make sense removing the current rule we have in place - read my long paragraph above. And to All users, if this crazy proposal ro remove it goes through, I am not abiding by it. Per BP:IAR / BP:UCS all users have rights to ignore these policies if it helps the wiki. And I don't want to hear "The you'll have your tools taken away"- then I'll do as much as I can to better the wiki to the limits even if I am blocked, or my admin rights are stripped from my account. Users anyways will protest to bring me back anyways.:P Skdhjf(Talk!) 22:58, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- If someone is underage and vandalizing block them. Don't block them if they are helping out. LEGOS are loved by children so they should no more aout curent sets. I think that as long as they don't vandalize pages we should let them be. Disagree with me but I don't care. klagoername that user
- Another one... Don't any of you get it? Isnt anything clicking?! Wikia Terms and Conditions is a policy all should abide by. And to mr. Minifigure, little children do not know more about LEGO. They just Hang out on LEGO sites and wait for the next release not knowing any future sets. These COPPA conditions are meant to protect the children. Not be bossy or anything. And letting them edit here freely and them revealing their age is.....well, somewhat dangerous. You know how many children get stalked by this? Children under 13 have a low maturity level and are 100% prone to give personal information to stalkers. And some even get assaulted due to them giving out their address, and other stuff. Think about it. Protect them and vote to keep this policy. Or let the stalkers get them, and vote to remove this policy. Skdhjf(Talk!) 23:32, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I say we vote now. I feel all the comments above are being repeated. Voting- no comments allowed. •myk 23:39, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- This is voting, per the new system of discussion. ajr 23:39, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. •myk 23:42, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, guys. What are we accomplishing here? I've been thinking about this for a bit, and I kinda feel this whole thing's a bit ridiculous. Why? We're trying to solve stuff that in some respects is beyond us. As FB100Z mentioned above, how can we tell if what they're saying is the truth or not? We can't and it is not under our ability to find out for sure. Definitely, there have been a number of great users who were blocked for being underaged ("underaged"), but is it fair? Probably not. But remember: Life's not fair. Right now, all of you probably get to enjoy editing on Brickipedia and even viewing its content. Millions just like you have to beg in the streets for food, or sleep in dumps since they're homeless. So what if you can't edit if you're underaged ("underaged")? At least there's a possibility for those users to edit once they come to age...
- Personally, I view editing on Brickipedia as a privilege. If it turns out you really are underaged (really admit it), it's not like it's the end of the world. And as I stated somewhere up there before, those users can choose to edit again after they come to age, even if it's like in 2 years. But if some "immature" users claim they're younger, but are "lying", then I feel they're possibly abusing (or something like that) their privilege to edit on Brickipedia, and should also be blocked.
- Lastly, you can agree or disagree with me, but don't let stuff like this distract us from our purpose here on Brickipedia. Remember, we're not just users...we're also editors or Brickipedia, the LEGO Encyclopedia.
Byzantium 3000![[Special:Editcount/Byzantium 3000|Special:Editcount/Byzantium 3000 edits!]] 00:12, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- +1 for your last paragraph in particular. Also, we seem to look down on users who claim that they're underage, so why do we believe what they are saying? Are we that credulous, or are we that trigger-happy? FB100Z • talk • contribs 00:45, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- *sigh* Comment - Can someone finally refute all three of my arguments at the top of the "Reviving" section? FB100Z • talk • contribs 00:45, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- This forum gives me such a headache, I don't even remember what started it. I just think noone should tell their age, and if they do then whatever. Leave the age stuff to Wikia is what I think. I was an underage user and I will tell you this whole deal was a load of stress and scare. So yeah, not that anyone's gonna care about this vote. AND the last thing I want is to start ANOTHER ten-page "structured debate" with anyone. So just read and accept my belief, noone can prove you are underage. For all you know, I could be 9...even though I'm not. :P <end rant> -NBP 01:34, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- For all we know everyone could be underage. And I agree with above how about noone tell there age and if they do let Wikia take care of it. Can we agree on that. klagoername that user
- My point exactly...not that everyone else will agree on it. FB100Z • talk • contribs 05:40, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- I'd refute, but there is no point as I really don't see why we are all getting so worked up on this forum. Kingcjc 12:14, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose If they are dumb enough to tell their age who what other personal info they might tell... --{{SUBST:Dog4591/sig}} 04:54, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Users can post whatever personal info they want, and that doesn't necessarily make them dumb. Various Wikians have publicly revealed their real names, birth dates, genders, email addresses, Twitter/Facebook profiles...you name it. Plus, if they're that dumb, why do you care so much about their privacy and protection? FB100Z • talk • contribs 05:40, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- You are all taking this too seriously. "Oh, you think this, you Liberal!" "If we do this, we let perverts get them". This forum has just turned into generalisation and hypotheticals aimed at trying to convince people you have the better opinion, but really just make things worse. If someone makes a policy designed to actually improve the content or the wiki or the amount of editors, it gets hardly any discussion, yet we are putting all our attention on one policy on whether to do something that may help in the future, may not, may not even pass, yet you are acting like its the end of the world as we know it (and I feel fine). Kingcjc 12:14, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- @Tatooine: Children are NOT 100% prone to giving out personal information and every generation says that the new one's moral standard are dwindling...seriously-quit acting as if you're some wise old man or something like that. Also, Support to blocking.
BobaFett
Talk MOCPages Group (Click)
- <old man voice> Young man, you should be ashamed of yourself! Disrespect your elders, will you? Kids these days... </old man voice> FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:28, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I apologize to those who are exasperated by my digging up some old dirt; it's my fault. I had a sort of grudge against our blocking policy regarding this, not out of sympathy for underage users, but out of disagreement with our jumping to conclusions. When I finally let the cat out of the bag and revealed my dissidence, frankly, I wasn't expecting this sort of reaction. Sorry again. FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:28, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Closed. There is no consensus to not block underaged users, and as such I'm closing this forum as such. Some people are going to be wondering what I, a non-neutral admin is doing closing this forum, and I will explain that it great detail.
- The first thing that you should know is that I am now neutral, and in explaining why I hope to give everyone some insight as to why I've closed this as no consensus. Samdo994 brings up some very good points in my mind about how it is good to protect children - regardless of whether or not there is an American law stating that it should be done. If a user is under the age of 13 and publicly revealing that info, the internet might not be the best place for them. Who knows what other info they could give out? That being said, I still don't like the concept of blocking a fine user, which is why I am personally neutral.
- Regardless of my thoughts on this matter, I am still able to be objective here in looking at this. It is very obvious that there are conflicting viewpoints here which are sticking to their guns, or so to speak, and as such there is no consensus to take any action. This means that the status quo is maintained and no actions are taken.
- You might also be wondering why I closed this while there is still active discussion; it has become clear to many people that further discussion here is really pointless. It has turned into an idealogical debate, and as I said above nobody is willing to agree on anything. It is also clear that there will not be a consensus established here, no matter how much more discussion goes on - so it makes sense to close this now, rather than have more hard feelings develop.
- Let's get back to editing, shall we? ajr 22:06, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
|
