Wikipedia talk:Child protection

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Child protection page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 3 months

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

No legal threats

I added a sub section below "Handling of reports":

=== No legal threats ===
If you post a legal threat on Wikipedia, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. A polite report of a legal problem is not a threat and will be acted on quickly.

but it has been removed with the edit summary "this doesn't seem to have any obvious relevance here".

The section is of course relevant, because a natural inclination of an agreived parent is to threaten to seek legal recourse, and we want to assist them, not have to block them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems rather hypothetical. I can't recall any incident where there was a WP:NLT problem as a result of this policy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy status of the ban clause

@Alison The ban clause was added by a banned sock back in 2018, who was reverted twice consecutively by @Ianmacm and @Tornado chaser, I failed to locate a discussion related to the addition either. This failed the most basic WP:EDITCON, and 6 years don't count as forever. However, the part that irks me the most is how it is simply not how banning works, banning only occurs by community discussions, three strikes socking violation, or ArbCom or WMF decisions. Kenneth Kho (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of our opinions on how banning works, the wording should follow what actually happens. I have only seen a handful of cases and they were years ago, but my recollection is that the editors concerned ended up in Category:Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the wording should follow what actually happens. But a quick check would show that it is not the case, I only had to click a few to stumble upon 86sedan, which was only blocked initially before the gradual escalation in 2023. Even if it is correct that all the editors ended up banned, it is clear that the bans were consistent with banning policy and not abrupt. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find an exact edit where I reverted this in 2018, but Tornado Chaser's revert is here. As this has policy related issues, it should not be changed without a talk page consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the revert that you linked is "Unexplained changes to policy." I was puzzled that the revert was not substantive, so I assume the intent was to revert the substantive change made by the same editor here, i.e. this one [1]. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial disputes about fictional child pornography?

Um this page doesn't really go into this but I think that maybe it should? Sometimes situations aren't as clear as go to ANI/someone is POV-pushing and this page could probably say something about that. For example, Talk:Shipping discourse#There needs to be more distinction about pedophilia compared to other aspects of shipping discourse. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]