Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:27, 19 July 2013

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

User:NovaSkola

Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Violation, since I notice that User:Proudbolsahye already consulted you about the same issue. I'd be inclined to issue a one-month block. Since the violation is obvious, going to AE doesn't seem necessary. If NovaSkola had made a credible promise to refrain from further violations, I'd have considered it. Do you have any commment on the idea of a one-month block? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions

Do you make sure that an editor has not outed himself before issuing sanctions against editors for using his/her real name? Some editors in WP have a history of not being entirely honest about their editing histories. I suggest you check a certain off-wiki discussion site to see what I'm talking about. Cla68 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm checking whether they identify themselves on their user page and performing other targeted searches to determine whether outing has been or could be an issue with respect to a user. It's evidently impossible to check a veteran user's entire edit history. At any rate, I'm of the view that harassing an editor by publicizing their alleged name against their will is sanctionable irrespective of whether the name may have been made public once or twice years ago. I'm not in the habit of reading any offwiki fora, and certainly not for the purpose of basing any administrative action on their contents.  Sandstein  21:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There are definitely two sides to this episode, Sandstein, and it looks like you are only seeing one of them. Getting both sides is very important, and if you have to use other sources besides WP, then it would be to everyone's benefit to do so, perhaps because WP's institutional memory is so short and inconsistent. Cla68 (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There is at least one other editor seeing Sandstein's side of things because I concur that drg55's actions constituted outing. About a decade ago when I was working on a JD one of my professors asked my class what charge would be incurred if a man shot another man, who happened to be dead, but unbeknownst to the shooter. As might be expected, most of the class responded with something along the lines of corpse desecration or something like it. In actuality, the correct answer was attempted murder because the perpetrator's state of mind was such that he was attempting to kill someone. In this instance, drg55 had been warned on multiple occasions for outing violations but persisted in his actions, demonstrating that s/he has no respect for our policies vis a vis outing. So even if CO's name was previously available to those with excess time on their hands to go searching for his real identity, it's clear that drg55 had no problem with violating his privacy on multiple occasion simply to push an agenda Nformation 09:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It's the "Lady Eldon's French Lace" argument associated with Francis Wharton. See, among many discussions, Alan M. Dershowitz The best defence, Random House 2011 pp.85-116.( "Whatever Else It May Be, It is Not Murder to Shoot a Dead Body: Man Dies But Once.") Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

In actuality, the correct answer was attempted murder because the perpetrator's state of mind was such that he was attempting to kill someone. Under Italian law, that would be called "impossible crime" (reato impossibile, cf. art. 49 of the Italian Penal Code, or, if you understand Italian, Reato impossibile). In the case you mention, it would be impossible for the defendant to actually harm the interest protected by the rule that he allegedly broke (it's difficult to explain, but, basically, the rules prohibiting murder are there to protect what we call the "bene giuridico" – translated literally, it's "legal good", but, in this context, the expression means an interest which is deemed worthy of protection by the State – identified in a person's interest to his life and only conducts which damage or threaten said interest can be punished; in this case, since the victim was already dead, his right to life could no longer be threatened). This is a similar case, where Prioryman right to keep his identity secret is no longer protected by WP:OUTING, but may be protected, under the circumstances, by WP:HARASS. Salvio 12:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we German-speaking lawyers call this Rechtsgut. Though if we want to be lawyerly here, I'd argue that the interest worthy of protection is the privacy of the user, and whether it is being breached for the first time or for any number of subsequent times is at most a minor consideration. That's why I agree that even if the instant case does not turn out to be a case of outing in the strict sense of "revealing private information hitherto not voluntarily revealed", it is a case of harassment, which is for most intents and purposes (such as sanctions) the same thing.  Sandstein  13:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to change TDA's sanction rationale to WP:HARASS? If so, then I think you need to extend the sanction to the arbitrators who have recently said the same thing that he did. Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have said at WP:ARCA what I intend to do about the sanction, if there are no arbitrator objections.  Sandstein  04:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

My edit

Hello, I made an edit to the article about the Bechdel test that you undid. I added "(and have names)" - yes, you are correct this is not in the original cartoon on which the test came from, but the test has evolved and has been adapted in research. Please look at it before changing it. The "name" element is important to us scholars. For information about me see: andrewpegoda.com/cv Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.70.182 (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm copying this from my talk page to Talk:Bechdel test, which is the place for discussions concerning this topic, and will reply there.  Sandstein  06:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

According to WP:ARBPIA, if yu undo 3 editors in a single edit, is that 1 revert or 3 reverts? Pass a Method talk 07:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is a question of ARBPIA, but a question of the more general policy at WP:EW. It says: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". I read this as meaning that one edit that reverts the actions of several other editors is one revert.  Sandstein  07:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI 14 July 2013

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Badanagram (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Mahjong

I think this debate should have been closed as a keep, not no consensus, for three reasons. First, there were significantly more keep opinions than either merge or delete ones. Second, the keep opinions were significantly more policy-based - specifically, they largely discussed the sourcing of the article, while the other opinions largely didn't. Third, this decision is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chess Titans, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Purble Place, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spider Solitaire (Windows), all of which were opened around the same time by the same nominator and saw many of the same users participating, and all of which were closed as keeps.

Of course, this wouldn't really change much right now - the article stays either way - but articles with no consensus closures are obviously more subject to ending up on WP:DRV or undergoing a subsequent deletion nomination. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

AE appeal

Hello, I appealed the sanction you imposed on me here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)