|
Help
This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.
|
|
Baseball Bugs |
|
|
The Wales Hunter |
|
Hackenslasher
Group: Regulars
Posts: 869
Joined:
Member No.: 4,319
|
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. QUOTE 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. â†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 |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 153
Joined:
Member No.: 13,085
|
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Sat 16th January 2010, 6:22pm) 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. QUOTE 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. â†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 |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Deodand @ Sat 16th January 2010, 11:31am) QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Sat 16th January 2010, 6:22pm) 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. QUOTE 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. â†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.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Limey @ Sat 16th January 2010, 12:21pm) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 16th January 2010, 6:54pm)
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 |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
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 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 402
Joined:
From: Rochester, NY
Member No.: 1,975
|
QUOTE(Deodand @ Sat 16th January 2010, 1:31pm) QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Sat 16th January 2010, 6:22pm) 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: QUOTE(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:
|
|
|
|
RMHED |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
|
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Sat 16th January 2010, 6:22pm) 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. QUOTE 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. â†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 |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 16th January 2010, 2:44pm) 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. QUOTE(RMHED @ Sat 16th January 2010, 6:15pm) 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 |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 214
Joined:
Member No.: 16,616
|
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
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sun 17th January 2010, 7:06am) 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. QUOTE 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 |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 17th January 2010, 5:17pm) QUOTE 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 |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 18th January 2010, 1:15am) QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 17th January 2010, 5:17pm) QUOTE 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |