FANDOM


Forums > Senate Hall archive > I am twelve


I am twelve Darth Rayze 00:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Colour you banned. .... 00:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • But as you can see, he is merely four, so you got a few years on him. Was there a point to your topic? DarthMRN 00:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes 4dot tells me that SWFanon needs to ban all the 13 and under contributors and that we are breaking the law by not doing so so me saying im twelve here should get me bannedDarth Rayze 00:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Your wish is my command. jSarek 00:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Why would someone want to get banned? Crazy preteens... Darth SargeConverse with me! 00:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Kids these days. "Ban me! Ban me!" It's always about them. Like we can just drop whatever we're doing to get out the banstick. Then when they don't get banned right away they drop to the floor and start crying and throwing a fit. So inconsiderate. Havac 03:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Considering that precocious five-year-olds can still edit the site anonymously or without revealing their age, I'm not sure what the point to this policy is. Perhaps it would make more sense to delete userpages where a user reveals themselves to be under twelve, tell them the page was deleted according to policy, and add a section on privacy to the user page policy? —Silly Dan (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The point is compliance with COPPA. Havac 17:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • How is it in compliance with COPPA though? It's not like he's giving us information that tells us where he lives. Which is what COPPA is designed for. You can't just ba him for saying "I'm twelve", that's age discrimination. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, that's COPPA, not age discrimination. Go onto most any forum, proclaim you're under 13, and you'll be banned within the day. Also, to back this up, look at this:
"The act, effective April 21, 2000, 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."
―COPPA[src]

Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 19:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • That doesn't answer my question. COPPA is designed to prevent under 13's from revealing information that can lead to them being identified. Darth rayze wasn't revealing anything, he merely stated his ages. Once again, ageism. Your taking the parts of COPPA which suit 4dots view, and leaving out the parts which say Rayze is legally allowed to stay. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 19:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Alright, I'll put the quote that you're referring to:
"While children under 13 can theoretically join communities that require personal information given parental permissions, many sites still opt to completely disallow underage users, usually because the paperwork is too much of a hassle."
―COPPA[src]

Note that it says "parental permissions". Rayze (and most other underage COPPA violaters) has not submitted any paperwork. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 19:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and Rule apply to individually identifiable information about a child that is collected online, such as full name, home address, email address, telephone number or any other information that would allow someone to identify or contact the child. The Act and Rule also cover other types of information -- for example, hobbies, interests and information collected through cookies or other types of tracking mechanisms -- when they are tied to individually identifiable information."
―Coppa[[1]]

He is not revealing any of this information, and so is not in defiance of COPPA And as for paperwork, note that it says this is for sites that require personal information to be revealed. Last I checked, you didn't have to reveal your adress, name or anything to become a member of Wookieepedia. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 19:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This site also has no policy saying that a user who identifies himself as, or is, under thirteen, to be automatically banned. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 19:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Call it an unofficial policy. Common sense policy. Wikia policy. Doesn't matter. 13> olds have been banned for quite a number of weeks. *cough*PatrickNobody*cough* If you don't like it then it's your problem. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 20:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Erm, unoffical policies don't hack it. And it's not common sense. Darth rayze should be unbanned as per the quotes I have provided, and per the fact that there is no written policy which blocks his membership to this site. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
        • You remember when you signed up for the Wookieepedia? Remember when you entered your e-mail address? Huh...I guess that means that we do collect private data... —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
          • You remember when it said that entering your email address was optional? You don't have to enter your email address. So unless Darth rayze entered his, you have no personal data of his. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Before you continue this discussion, I would direct you to read the user signature policy, which you are currently violating. If you do not bring your signature into compliance before posting anything else, you will be blocked from editing. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Yup, he did enter it. He should be banned. Additionally, COPPA covers hobbies and interests, as anyone editing a Star Wars wiki is both interested in Star Wars and has a hobby for either collecting information about it or general wiki editting. Thus, a breach of COPPA. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It has been decided, for the convenience of the administration and for complete protection from liability, that we will not allow underage accounts. The system captures IP data, which is personally identifiable information, which means we can't do it. It would break the law to do otherwise. I don't see why this is a big deal. Havac 21:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Unwritten policy or not I agree with this as it would be a shame for Wookieepedia to have to be shut down for not following COPPA. So keeping us safe from such liability issues is in the best interest of Wookieepedia. And there is nothing wrong with Rayze contacting an administrator and finding the proper paperwork to fill out for parental consent. Darth SargeConverse with me! 22:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't even think "parental consent" will even cut it since the said minor is still sending personal information to the site. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 01:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, if the correct paperwork is filled out, an underaged minor can evade COPPA. However, that's virturally impossible with the amount, and, as the Wikipedia article states, is why most online communities don't even deal with the paperwork and just ban or disallow minors. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 01:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Makes sense (Shudders at the thought of all that paperwork.) But all this government regulations does little good for the most part. I mean unless the minor in question actually says they are below the age of 13 or somehow shows that they are we would be unable to find that out wouldn't we? All in all IMO it should be based on maturity level, if someone is mature enough to be responsible and not give out their personal info then they should be able to access things like Wookieepedia, but I understand that it is impossible to test someones maturity so my opinion I guess is invalid...Oh well. Darth SargeConverse with me! 02:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
        • You are correct about the releasing thing. If one does not proclaim one's age, then no action can be taken because there has been no proof. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 02:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we just bar them from making an user page or remove it as soon as we see one? -- Riffsyphon1024 04:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Or we continue to adhere to common interpretation and implementation of the law. It works for everyone else and it will continue to work for Wookieepedia. Anyone that voluntarily identifies themself as under the age of 13 should be banned, as has become a perfectly justifiable precedent within the online community. --School of Thrawn 101 05:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • For example, Ilikepie's user page contains a userbox that clearly states that Ilikepie is 12 years old. Obviously, Ilikepie is unaware that revealing this information will result in an immediate ban. Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of the website to follow the letter of the law so as to make certain that no accidental breach is committed. --School of Thrawn 101 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Very well, since Darth rayze entered his email address, I agree he is in violation of COPPA. But i don't agree with the fact that he was banned before this information was revealed. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 16:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I dont necessarily agree with COPPA or that policy, but in today's world were kids are getting abducted and what not, we on the Internet and on Websites like this (Star Wars does have a large fanbase in the younger audience, in case you didn't notice)have to take responsiblity and enforce COPPA standards. Not only does it protect younger kids from accidently letting a predator know where they're living, it also protects Wookiepedia and it's owners from certain legal ramifications should that happen. Perhaps it was a bit harsh to just ban without that information being know, but it is the policy and the law. I do propose that a link to the COPPA information and a disclaimer stating that no users under the age of 13 are allowed should be placed on the user creation page. Thoughts?O-ChampionOfTheForce-o 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Seconded. And a warning of bandom should the admins have any reason to suspect you are under 13. DarthMRN 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • If a user under 13 does not reveal any personal information (including the fact they are under 13), it's not a COPPA violation. - Sikon 13:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Jasca, it's not a difficult concept. MOST websites that have ANY kind of registration are also required to provide a privacy policy in regards to users under the age of 13. In the event that a registered user is verified as under the age of 13, there are (quite literally) volumes of paperwork that have to be physically filled out and exchanged between the parents of the child and the website at which the child is registered. In an effort to avoid paperwork, as well as avoid ridiculous litigation costs and inclusion in class-action lawsuits, just about EVERY SINGLE website that either requires or includes registration will automatically ban every single under 13 user that attempts to register. It has precedence. It it perfectly legal. Moreover, it is just plain SMART thinking. Oh, and the kid's email address wasn't just magically revealed after he was banned. It was available in the public domain long before that. Emphasis on PUBLIC DOMAIN. Fin. --School of Thrawn 101 04:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Twelve-year-olds do have the potential to benefit a wiki like this, though many would probably be inclined to favor their userpages and the Senate Hall as places to edit. If you take this into consideration, with plain WISE thinking, putting a notice up where everyone who creates an account sees the notice that explicitly states that no personal information is to be given to Wookieepedia to comply with the law will be easier and more productive (and more virtuous and less lazy) than banning everyone that says that they are not yet at the age that the United States politicians see fit to expose to spam. Honestly, COPPA is not violated until someone gives away information that can identify oneself. If the revealing of such information is punished with a ban, it would be just as easy (and morally acceptable) as punishing age with a ban. Wikia does note that users under thirteen years of age should not reveal their email adresses or give their real names, but says NOTHING about fencing them off from the community. C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Any edit made, by anyone, registered or not, submits an IP address. Which is submitting personal information. From one IP address, one can determine the EXACT location of the user. If you don't like that, then don't freakin reveal that your a 12 year old. It's a don't ask, don't tell policy. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That is slightly dishonest, but appealing. The IP adress, though, is not as open a part of the PUBLIC DOMAIN as the rest. Only checkusers and the Staff can view these, and they only do so with discretion and with restraint from revealing anything other than verifying sockpuppetry and the such. C3PO the Dragon Slayer 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Still submitting private information. Doesn't matter who sees it or not. Illegal either way. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 02:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Last time I checked, COPPA doesn't exempt Wikia sysops from viewing user information. --192.251.125.85 04:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Preceding edit was me. --School of Thrawn 101 04:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.