I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester, Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia -- behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling reason to punish me.
I was a bit more surprised when an earlier form of this letter (differing only in describing the status of the pending arbitration, aside from this paragraph) was banned without explantion from the Wikipedia mailing list where such topics could supposedly be discussed. But I was appalled when discussions on that list, regarding a named editor, turned to open derision of the editor's supposed emotional/mental impairments, and that one Arbitration Committee member participated in the abuse.
As someone who has been involved for more than thirty years, professionally and nonprofessionally, in attempting to protect and to advance the rights of the mentally disabled, and as someone who for many years has served, and continues to serve as a guardian for such disabled members of my community. I find the use of such epithets grossly offensive; they are clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia's supposed commitment to civility. They form no part of civil discourse in any circumstances. They are particularly deserving of condemnation because they are directed toward, in very real terms attack, and have the greatest tendency to injure, a class of people who are less able, sometimes unable, to defend themselves, to resist the impact, or to respond on equal terms. [And, as a note to the politically correct, it is for that reason that I will not use the abominable term "mentally challenged," because it denies (sometimes grossly minimizes) the imbalances of social power that inhere in the relationships between the mentally disabled and the "unchallenged" elements of any community.]
It should be no secret, no obscure facet of social fabric, that the mentally disabled, particularly the mentally retarded, are at greater risk than almost any other segment of a society. More likely to be the victims of physical attacks. More likely to be neglected by governments, particularly when their needs are greatest. In the relatively rare instances when they have substantial assets, they are more likely to have their assets stolen, particularly at the hands of those actors on whom a government has conferred power over them. They are more likely to be degraded and exploited by industries which purport to protect them and to serve their interests. More like to be the victims of sexual assaults, particularly of organized, group sexual assaults.
The casual use of such hateful epithets does not only harm the individuals it targets. It causes pain, often great pain to many others. It regularly inflicts pain on those with brothers and sisters, with parents, with children, with friends, with acquaintances, even with clients, who are abused and dehumanized by such behavior. It regularly inflicts pain on so many of those who deal, day by day, with lesser mental and emotional impairments, whether they choose to acknowledge those impairments, publicly or privately, or not.
I am quite proud that a self-styled community which apparently condones such behavior and condemns opposition to it finds me such a danger to it and its values that it is preparing to forcibly separate me from it. Nothing I have contributed to this curious place makes me more proud, and I doubt anything else could.
User: Monicasdude
Not licensed, no rights released
I am somewhat at a loss as to how the arbitration request regarding Monicasdude has anything to do with mental disability. It seems to have a lot more to do with him being nasty about nominations for deletion.
Fred
On May 8, 2006, at 12:07 PM, Wiliam J. Clinton wrote:
I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester, Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia -- behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling reason to punish me.
I was a bit more surprised when an earlier form of this letter (differing only in describing the status of the pending arbitration, aside from this paragraph) was banned without explantion from the Wikipedia mailing list where such topics could supposedly be discussed. But I was appalled when discussions on that list, regarding a named editor, turned to open derision of the editor's supposed emotional/mental impairments, and that one Arbitration Committee member participated in the abuse.
As someone who has been involved for more than thirty years, professionally and nonprofessionally, in attempting to protect and to advance the rights of the mentally disabled, and as someone who for many years has served, and continues to serve as a guardian for such disabled members of my community. I find the use of such epithets grossly offensive; they are clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia's supposed commitment to civility. They form no part of civil discourse in any circumstances. They are particularly deserving of condemnation because they are directed toward, in very real terms attack, and have the greatest tendency to injure, a class of people who are less able, sometimes unable, to defend themselves, to resist the impact, or to respond on equal terms. [And, as a note to the politically correct, it is for that reason that I will not use the abominable term "mentally challenged," because it denies (sometimes grossly minimizes) the imbalances of social power that inhere in the relationships between the mentally disabled and the "unchallenged" elements of any community.]
It should be no secret, no obscure facet of social fabric, that the mentally disabled, particularly the mentally retarded, are at greater risk than almost any other segment of a society. More likely to be the victims of physical attacks. More likely to be neglected by governments, particularly when their needs are greatest. In the relatively rare instances when they have substantial assets, they are more likely to have their assets stolen, particularly at the hands of those actors on whom a government has conferred power over them. They are more likely to be degraded and exploited by industries which purport to protect them and to serve their interests. More like to be the victims of sexual assaults, particularly of organized, group sexual assaults.
The casual use of such hateful epithets does not only harm the individuals it targets. It causes pain, often great pain to many others. It regularly inflicts pain on those with brothers and sisters, with parents, with children, with friends, with acquaintances, even with clients, who are abused and dehumanized by such behavior. It regularly inflicts pain on so many of those who deal, day by day, with lesser mental and emotional impairments, whether they choose to acknowledge those impairments, publicly or privately, or not.
I am quite proud that a self-styled community which apparently condones such behavior and condemns opposition to it finds me such a danger to it and its values that it is preparing to forcibly separate me from it. Nothing I have contributed to this curious place makes me more proud, and I doubt anything else could.
User: Monicasdude
Not licensed, no rights released _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/10/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I am somewhat at a loss as to how the arbitration request regarding Monicasdude has anything to do with mental disability. It seems to have a lot more to do with him being nasty about nominations for deletion.
It appears that one somewhat nasty comment about another user's intelligence for nominating something at AFD, that user placed a message on Monicasdude's talk page asking 'Do you think I'm retarded?' This caused Monicasdude to go off on the guy about disrespect for those with mental disabilities, and is one of the incidents of incivility cited in the arbitration case.
Now, it seems, Monicasdude is seizing upon this as a way to play the martyred defender of those who cannot defend themselves, handily ignoring all the OTHER cited cases of incivility.
For a display of drama-queen-dom too severe even for LiveJournal, check out Monicasdude's current userpage: "This user is proud to be a target of the Wikipedia Committee of Public Safety".
-Matt, amused and disgusted simultaneously.
On 5/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
For a display of drama-queen-dom too severe even for LiveJournal, check out Monicasdude's current userpage: "This user is proud to be a target of the Wikipedia Committee of Public Safety".
Forgive me, but I'm not sure why we would take someone whose email was from "William J. Clinton" and whose username is "monicasdude" seriously. Not being an admin has some advantages, I guess ;)
Steve
On 5/11/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Forgive me, but I'm not sure why we would take someone whose email was from "William J. Clinton" and whose username is "monicasdude" seriously. Not being an admin has some advantages, I guess ;)
Normally I wouldn't, but the user in question has been around for a while and, outside the behaviour which currently is under question, has a goodly amount of useful contributions.
-Matt
I must confess I missed the connection entirely. My proposals in the arbitration case were just based on his behavior.
Fred
On May 11, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/11/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
For a display of drama-queen-dom too severe even for LiveJournal, check out Monicasdude's current userpage: "This user is proud to be a target of the Wikipedia Committee of Public Safety".
Forgive me, but I'm not sure why we would take someone whose email was from "William J. Clinton" and whose username is "monicasdude" seriously. Not being an admin has some advantages, I guess ;)
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Wiliam J. Clinton wrote:
I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester, Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia -- behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling reason to punish me.
I stopped reading here because there were no links to any actual evidence. I scrolled through the rest of the posting and found no links at all.
Try again.
Timwi
I suspect he was referring to the recent thread(s) regarding Julie Harding.
k
On 5/10/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Wiliam J. Clinton wrote:
I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of
the
Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D.
Forrester,
Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate
speech
and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on
Wikipedia --
behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a
compelling
reason to punish me.
I stopped reading here because there were no links to any actual evidence. I scrolled through the rest of the posting and found no links at all.
Try again.
Timwi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On May 10, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Katefan0 wrote:
I suspect he was referring to the recent thread(s) regarding Julie Harding.
k
It was a tangential issue in his RfAr. As I recall, someone called someone else a retard and he played the "that's offensive to retarded people" card. Overall, a weird distraction from the issues at hand.
Regarding civility indeed: User:Monicasdude is being sanctioned under a pending ArbCom decision for repeated use of phrases such as "aggressive ignorance", "remarkably arrogant and foolish", "bad faith".
Charles
On 5/8/06, Wiliam J. Clinton monicasdud@gmail.com wrote:
I got this far, and thought, why would I keep reading?
Steve
Dude, Tony Sidaway can get away with being an aggressive inclusionist because (a) he is almost always right, (b) he's been here since forever and has earned the right through sheer hard work and (c) he does not make gratuitous personal attacks.
You appear to fail on all three counts.
And even Tony has been hauled up in front of ArbCom.
Guy (JzG)
On 5/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
(b) he's been here since forever
As far as I can figure his first edits were 1st nov 2004 as Minority Report. You predate that. I predate that. Generaly the "been here forever" tag is probably best resurved for the likes of Fred Bauder (1 November 2002)
-- geni
06:13, February 28, 2002 (hist) (diff) m User:Fredbauder (Basic info)
But there were a slew of people already editing.
Fred
On May 10, 2006, at 4:15 PM, geni wrote:
On 5/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
(b) he's been here since forever
As far as I can figure his first edits were 1st nov 2004 as Minority Report. You predate that. I predate that. Generaly the "been here forever" tag is probably best resurved for the likes of Fred Bauder (1 November 2002)
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/05/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
(b) he's been here since forever
As far as I can figure his first edits were 1st nov 2004 as Minority Report. You predate that. I predate that. Generaly the "been here forever" tag is probably best resurved for the likes of Fred Bauder (1 November 2002)
As usual, I think you missed the underlying point entirely, which was that Sidaway's long-term contributions to the project and the community serve to explain why there is so much good will for him; he has become a VestedContributor. This wouldn't excuse any serious behaviour which set out to harm the encyclopaedia, of course, or interrupt its creation, which is why he has not been above arbitration at times.
People may joke about the cabal, but the reality is that there *is* a group of people who call the shots in different areas, on a day to day basis. And nobody really cares because they're being useful and productive.
Rob Church
On 5/10/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
As usual, I think you missed the underlying point entirely,
Not really. You know I dissagree with certian parts of the underling point (come on it's one of wikipedia's rules Tony Sidaway and Geni will dissagree on almost everything).
I was more noting the the defintion of being here forever appears to be shofting somewhat.
People may joke about the cabal, but the reality is that there *is* a group of people who call the shots in different areas, on a day to day basis. And nobody really cares because they're being useful and productive.
Yes and no. While it is partly true. The areas so controled are not A1 critical. Wikipedia can in the short term at least function without them. Those areas which are are controlled by no one.
-- geni
G'day geni,
On 5/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
(b) he's been here since forever
As far as I can figure his first edits were 1st nov 2004 as Minority Report. You predate that. I predate that. Generaly the "been here forever" tag is probably best resurved for the likes of Fred Bauder (1 November 2002)
By "been here forever", he didn't *literally* mean "been here forever", but rather that he's been here so long as to become a fixture of Wikipedia --- many people, even long-term contributors, cannot remember a Wikipedia without Tony_Sidaway.
By contrast, MarkGallagher has been here just as long as Tony_Sidaway has, but has not nearly had such an impressive influence --- whether that's a Good Thing or a Bad Thing depends, I suppose, on whether you're Tony_Sidaway or geni :-)
Cheers,
On 11/05/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
By contrast, MarkGallagher has been here just as long as Tony_Sidaway has, but has not nearly had such an impressive influence --- whether that's a Good Thing or a Bad Thing depends, I suppose, on whether you're Tony_Sidaway or geni :-)
Do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on? Should this be freely editable? Maybe it's time to up your cabal level. Anyone object if I unilaterally up Mark to a 30?
Rob Church
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Dude, Tony Sidaway can get away with being an aggressive inclusionist because (a) he is almost always right, (b) he's been here since forever and has earned the right through sheer hard work and (c) he does not make gratuitous personal attacks.
You appear to fail on all three counts.
And even Tony has been hauled up in front of ArbCom.
Guy (JzG)
Argh, I'm feeling my age, since I can remember a time when Tony wasn't here since forever. :(
John