Baseball Bugs Options

[The Wales Hunter]

There's a discussion on ANI (permalink) about whether a user should be banned for referring to Roman Polanski as a child rapist on Jimbo's talk page, per BLP.

There seem to be a lot of Polanski defenders on Wikipedia.

The following post disturbed me the most, though. Apparently, statutory rape against a 13-year-old isn't the same as statutory rape against a child.

Polanksi was convicted of statutory rape, and there is no question whatsoever that he committed that crime. Calling him a "child" rapist, however, is a question of definition, as his victim was 13 years old, not 5 or something. So it's best to stick to what he was convicted of and avoid emotionally-charged terminology. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's another example of why Wikipedia is broken - because they generally believe a 13-year-old isn't a child.

This post has been edited by The Wales Hunter:

[Deodand]

There's a discussion on ANI (permalink) about whether a user should be banned for referring to Roman Polanski as a child rapist on Jimbo's talk page, per BLP.

There seem to be a lot of Polanski defenders on Wikipedia.

The following post disturbed me the most, though. Apparently, statutory rape against a 13-year-old isn't the same as statutory rape against a child.

Polanksi was convicted of statutory rape, and there is no question whatsoever that he committed that crime. Calling him a "child" rapist, however, is a question of definition, as his victim was 13 years old, not 5 or something. So it's best to stick to what he was convicted of and avoid emotionally-charged terminology. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's another example of why Wikipedia is broken - because they generally believe a 13-year-old isn't a child.

That's because in legal terms, a 13 year old isn't, in most jurisdictions. It's statutory rape rather than "child rape".

[Milton Roe]

There's a discussion on ANI (permalink) about whether a user should be banned for referring to Roman Polanski as a child rapist on Jimbo's talk page, per BLP.

There seem to be a lot of Polanski defenders on Wikipedia.

The following post disturbed me the most, though. Apparently, statutory rape against a 13-year-old isn't the same as statutory rape against a child.

Polanksi was convicted of statutory rape, and there is no question whatsoever that he committed that crime. Calling him a "child" rapist, however, is a question of definition, as his victim was 13 years old, not 5 or something. So it's best to stick to what he was convicted of and avoid emotionally-charged terminology. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's another example of why Wikipedia is broken - because they generally believe a 13-year-old isn't a child.

That's because in legal terms, a 13 year old isn't, in most jurisdictions. It's statutory rape rather than "child rape".

Yes, though in Polanski's case, since heavy drugging was involved (not something his victim brought or ordinarily used) it was rape-rape, not "only" statutory-rape.

[John Limey]

Yes, though in Polanski's case, since heavy drugging was involved (not something his victim brought or ordinarily used) it was rape-rape, not "only" statutory-rape.

Well in a miscarriage (or victory if you a particular point of view) of justice, he was charged only with statutory rape.

[Milton Roe]

Yes, though in Polanski's case, since heavy drugging was involved (not something his victim brought or ordinarily used) it was rape-rape, not "only" statutory-rape.

Well in a miscarriage (or victory if you a particular point of view) of justice, he was charged only with statutory rape.

Yes, which the system forgot about at sentencing time, in contravention to prior agreement. Then said, "We can discuss that little matter if you come back and submit to arrest." To which Polanski said "Gee, and you want me to take YOUR WORD on that?"

Basically a pox on everybody involved in this FUBARed case. Perhaps they should just start over and re-try him for the same crime, slate clean. An appeals judge could actually set it all aside and make them do that.

[Somey]

The problem in this case, really, is that the person who made the initial post to Jimbo's talk page (as reported to AN/I by Tony Sidaway (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) is the notorious Dream Focus (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who apparently has never met a BLP he didn't want Wikipedia to keep, often for practically no legitimate reason whatsoever other than "there are multiple Google hits."

I personally don't think Jimbo's talk page is anything to get worked up over - I realize that it's one of the most-watched pages on WP, but if search engines aren't indexing it and everybody is signing their entries to make it clear they're just one person's perspective/opinion, relatively little harm is done beyond the usual potential for rumor-mongering (which could start almost anywhere on the internet).

Meanwhile, Mr. Sidaway could be looking for cases of unchecked BLP defamation to less-than-famous people and fix them, but of course that would generate waaay less drama, so that idea's a non-starter.

[Krimpet]

Perhaps it's another example of why Wikipedia is broken - because they generally believe a 13-year-old isn't a child.

That's because in legal terms, a 13 year old isn't, in most jurisdictions. It's statutory rape rather than "child rape".

According to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:

For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.

The age of majority in most of the US, including California where the rape took place, is 18; ergo, it's perfectly reasonable to say the victim was a child.

This post has been edited by Krimpet:

[The Wales Hunter]

I take the point I may have been wrong, but how about this.

Calling Roman Polanski a child-rapist - does it do him any real world damage? Could he win libel action? I doubt it.

Yet the editors who care so much about this seem happy when others are libelled and damaged. Shame some of the thousands of people with inaccurate BLPs on Wikipedia haven't made a few half decent films, if they had they might have an army to look after their pages!

[RMHED]

There's a discussion on ANI (permalink) about whether a user should be banned for referring to Roman Polanski as a child rapist on Jimbo's talk page, per BLP.

There seem to be a lot of Polanski defenders on Wikipedia.

The following post disturbed me the most, though. Apparently, statutory rape against a 13-year-old isn't the same as statutory rape against a child.

Polanksi was convicted of statutory rape, and there is no question whatsoever that he committed that crime. Calling him a "child" rapist, however, is a question of definition, as his victim was 13 years old, not 5 or something. So it's best to stick to what he was convicted of and avoid emotionally-charged terminology. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's another example of why Wikipedia is broken - because they generally believe a 13-year-old isn't a child.

Baseball Bugs is a frequent turd in the AN/I swimming pool. Though to be fair he's no worse than many others.

[SB_Johnny]

Meanwhile, Mr. Sidaway could be looking for cases of unchecked BLP defamation to less-than-famous people and fix them, but of course that would generate waaay less drama, so that idea's a non-starter.

Well, to be fair, if he's a "true believer" (I wouldn't know him from Adam), then going whole hog on making the high profile BLPs would be important.

Keeping an eye on the low profile ones would require a lot of work from a lot of responsible-type folks. Those are in short supply.

Baseball Bugs is a frequent turd in the AN/I swimming pool. Though to be fair he's no worse than many others.

He's amusingly witty though.

Credit where credit's due.

[BelovedFox]

Getting out of the muck that is the whole Roman Polanski story, and referring to the topic at hand:

It does appear that Baseball Bugs is evidence that a) too much humor is a bad thing (or perhaps the inability to take the right things seriously?) and b) spending too much time on administrator's noticeboards does lead to rather reflexive and unhelpful behavior (or he was just drawn to it, and hasn't changed a bit.)

On the plus side, I think most users have realized that he would be a very poor administrator because of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...p/Baseball_Bugs

[A Horse With No Name]

Baseball Bugs is a frequent turd in the AN/I swimming pool. Though to be fair he's no worse than many others.

BB tends to be a little funnier than most of the AN/I addicts, and for some time he was a wonderful irritant who brought out the worst in Tanthalas39. But outside of snide wisecracks, he offers relatively little of value to Wikipedia.

[Deodand]

BB on ANI sort of reminds me of a local politician I deal with. Whatever the situation, regardless of whether it's out of his area of knowledge, he feels the need to comment on every single damn thing, even if those comments are useless and add nothing of value to the conversation.

[CharlotteWebb]

His edits to AN/I number 4,976 and counting.

BB tends to be a little funnier than most of the AN/I addicts, and for some time he was a wonderful irritant who brought out the worst in Tanthalas39. But outside of snide wisecracks, he offers relatively little of value to Wikipedia.

For a while there I thought you were him, actually. Who else gives a fuck about Tanthalas39 (who?).

[TungstenCarbide]

BaseballBugs came and baited me once on my talk page. I kinda feel sorry for him though - I suspect he gets all his social interaction from wikidrama.

[victim of censorship]

BaseballBugs came and baited me once on my talk page. I kinda feel sorry for him though - I suspect he gets all his social interaction from wikidrama.

I think you right, which if that's the case, would be very sad indeed! Another misfit with the power of wiki to hurt others.

[A Horse With No Name]

For a while there I thought you were him, actually. Who else gives a fuck about Tanthalas39 (who?).

Mrs. Tanthalas39? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Somey]

His edits to AN/I number 4,976 and counting.

Is that an all-time record or something? That seems like an awfully high number, especially for a non-administrator.

Who else gives a fuck about Tanthalas39 (who?).

Well, it's common knowledge that Tanthalas39 is the only Wikipedia user I really care about, ever since he helped me deal with that terrifying emotional meltdown I had back in 2008, when I heard that In Harm's Way was cancelled.

[Milton Roe]

Who else gives a fuck about Tanthalas39 (who?).

Well, it's common knowledge that Tanthalas39 is the only Wikipedia user I really care about, ever since he helped me deal with that terrifying emotional meltdown I had back in 2008, when I heard that In Harm's Way was cancelled.

I had an encounter with Tanthalus39 way back when he was just a user. My impression was that he was as nakedly ambitious and dickheaded a user as I'd ever seen. Clearly a martinet in embryo, and headed upward. I made up my mind to watch him and oppose his RfA, when it inevitably happened. Then, of course, I missed it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

But my fears seem to have been confirmed.

[Malleus]

Who else gives a fuck about Tanthalas39 (who?).

Well, it's common knowledge that Tanthalas39 is the only Wikipedia user I really care about, ever since he helped me deal with that terrifying emotional meltdown I had back in 2008, when I heard that In Harm's Way was cancelled.

I had an encounter with Tanthalus39 way back when he was just a user. My impression was that he was as nakedly ambitious and dickheaded a user as I'd ever seen. Clearly a martinet in embryo, and headed upward. I made up my mind to watch him and oppose his RfA, when it inevitably happened. Then, of course, I missed it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

But my fears seem to have been confirmed.

He's no worse than loads of other administrators.