Wikipedia talk:Child protection

Role of ArbCom/T&S?

I think this page could probably be a bit clearer about the range of possible solutions, especially when it comes to other aspects that aren't nessecarily an immediate danger to children. The oversight email is a good choice, but I'm not sure it's the "only" one? I think it make senses to notify an active admin when people have POV-pushing concerns like the page currently states (as they might be able to act a bit sooner), but I also feel like this page could be clearer about forwarding those concerns elsewhere in more ambigious situations? I personally don't feel comfortable having matters of such importance being left to individual admins (what if one of us decides something is not blockable and is wrong about that?). I see the possible harm of choosing not to act in those situations as worrisome. It also seems like ArbCom has a possible role given a discussion I had here. I also had a conversation around that time off-wiki that gave me the impression that dealing with that stuff is a sizeable chunk of ArbCom's workload. Anyways, given the important real-life ramifications, and the fact that this is a policy set by the WMF to begin with, I think it would be a good idea to place more of that on them. I don't want to give up our local autonomy to block people if we feel it's a good choice to do so, of course, but I really do feel like this is the sort of thing trained employees should generally deal with. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I strongly agree with that last bit, Clovermoss (as well I should, as its sometimes part of my professional work)--and yet...it's a tricky thing: T&S can only do so much patrolling on this without the support of the sheer volunteer manpower of the community. And while I think an admin declining to apply this policy aggressively would be a serious concern--this policy design, it is perhaps our single-most, brooks-no-quarter, doesn't-permit-futzing-around-at-the-edges, don't-even-test-us-on-this PAG I really don't think that is likely to be realistic outcome very often. I'd be much more concerned about the prospect of discouraging rapid administrative action in this area. As someone who has had to engage with suppressing avowed pro-ped actors here and there over the years, I can tell you that the outcome of the ultimate, eventual call on the content itself is never really in doubt, but it can already take a frustratingly long time to get someone to look into matters and act on some occasions: understandably a lot of people just have a stomach-turning aversion to even engaging with the topic, even in abstract discussions and even to address ongoing safety issues. We see this kind of psychological avoidance in professional mandatory reports too sometimes. In short, we already face situations where response is not as fast as it could be, especially given how much time is of the essence in most cases.

Likewise, though I certainly think ArbCom can, should, and hopefully does work much more aggressively in the background to suppress offending content and commentary than is immediately evident from outside the most restricted communication streams, I think it would it would be incredibly detrimental to make them a bottleneck for community reports; again because of capacity and the scale and significance of the problem. Under the current system, someone could always report to ArbCom if an admin failed to act in their individual capacity, and report to T&S if ArbCom didn't respond fast enough. The only thing that taking individual admin reports out of the list of responding agents would do is to close down options that may be available in a significant subset of urgent instances--and for no real gain that I can see, presuming that enforcement of safety mechanisms consistent with the precautionary principle is our highest priority. That said, I do think we need to clarify and revitalize the verbiage of the policy a little. I actually have been worried about some laissez-faire attitudes I have seen in some edge case talk page contexts over the last few years. But I'm not at present 100% on what adjustments I would propose. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Update advice for young editors

Can we suggest to young people to email one of the official email addresses if they don't have a responsible adult they feel comfortable asking for help? Seems better than a young person deciding not to tell anyone. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I would be comfortable with that. Most mandatory reporter schemes out in the wider world recognize that you don't want children failing to act to protect themselves through disclosure to an authority with the power to respond to a safety threat simply because they lack adequate resources in terms of adults in their life--either in general or just in that particular moment. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

tbh i think kids should not be allowed to use this wiki at all

it would not only makes this less of an issue but it would probably increase quality control to some extent.

also isnt it kind of dumb that the existence of this page and guideline show that wikipedia says pedos are completely unacceptable in any form and they seem have a stance that they don't deserve any sort of sympathy or chance of forgiveness (the guy above got his account locked entirely so he cannot appeal even if he wanted to) but there seemingly isn't any extreme measures taken for any other severe crime like admitted abusers or murders just to name a few? i mean it would be hypocritical if you were more lenient on an actual rapist of a grown adult than a guy who's stated he's openly into children, something like that. i mean just because a crime doesnt involve a child doesnt mean you should feel less strongly about it, its horrid regardless of age. ~2026-39712-80 (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I can say with the utmost confidence that if we found that our spaces were being used to create harm in some way relating to murder and sexual assaults, we would do something about it... Also, you have the analysis and the purpose of this policy seriously misconstrued. Nothing in the wording of the policy says one single thing about "judging pedophiles fundamentally undeserving of basic human rights" or any other such nonsense as you are implying. It merely says that we will not, under any circumstances whatsoever, allow anyone to proselytize, either in our content or in our community (both of which, yes, of course will involve children having access....) the idea that pedophilic relationships can be healthy or anything else which seeks to normalize that kind of action. It's not a here to cast judgment issue, its a community safety issue.

Now as to the idea that we would ban children from using Wikipedia, that is clearly so absurd that I am roughly 90% certain you are actually trolling. But if you are not, can I point something out? It's an encyclopedia? And the world's single largest reference work of general educational resource? An encyclopedia reaches its highest potential for enrichment of the individual and lasting value to society in the hands of a child. Clearly we are not going introduce age restrictions (in content or community) merely for the trade off of not having to worry as much about potentially offending pro-offender advocates when we don't permit them to share their views on how what they do really is not such a bad thing. I'm sorry, but come on. And the user above was not blocked for the discussion above but because they were discovered to be the sock of an already blocked and super disruptive user. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)