User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 22

Disappointed

I refer to my much earlier enquiries, in passing, about Robert Isherwood et al and their banning. Having taken an initial interest in other activities of old stalwarts on the Right in the Conservative Party, some of whom I knew, I am disappointed to see that there are administrators here with an agenda. Sad but true. It appears some of the complaints I have been reading about on the several pages are confirmed. Sussexman 09:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stockdiver

Hey, Moe Epsilon is telling me you performed a IP check on Stockdiver confirming three consistent IP's with Mcfly85. Could you confirm this for me please, or point to a place on-wiki with that information? Thanks, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to spam your talk page, but this seemed serious enough to directly put on your talk page. I have evidence that AiG has actively had employees push their POV on the AiG page and possibly on related pages. I have added a new evidence section in the Agapetos arbitration to that effect, explaining the evidence. Due to the very serious nature of this accusation and its possible implications for Wikipedia, I decided to directly alert all of the ArbCom members. JoshuaZ 01:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ retracted this in evidence because it was erroneous, but failed to mention it on your talk page. agapetos_angel 07:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's highly inaccurate. I qualified the evidence in question. The user wasn't an employee but was specifically asked by an employee. See my evidence section and Standon's for details, and Agapetos, please don't put words in my mouth. JoshuaZ JoshuaZ 13:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Fred:

I've posted a note to AN/I here regarding Prasi90 (talk · contribs); he claims to have emailed you and not received a reply, and I wanted you to be able to offer additional information (especially given that it could be being discussed on the AC list without any of us knowing). Also, of course, I didn't want you to feel I was going behind your back. If you have the time, could you drop in and give your assessment? Thanks! Essjay Talk • Contact 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, you may want to also unprotect his IP.--MONGO 05:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a related development, User:Prasi90 has agreed to a period of mentorship, details of which are here [1] . Hopefully this will be a clean slate for this user. Hamster Sandwich 18:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:PoolGuy

Recently, you made a comment to the above user about how a checkuser was warranted for his "somewhat disruptive" use of User:GoldToeMarionette as a sockpuppet. Since then, he had his sock account indef. blocked, his talk pages protected, and his main account blocked for a week (with that timer being reset every day, since he's creating sockpuppets to voice his feelings about what's going on). However, he still insists what he's doing falls within policy, and insist we reverse all action against him. Could you please look into this? --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 17:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New cat for your userpage

Fred: You might want to consider adding Category:Lawyer Wikipedians to your userpage. Then you can be listed with all of your other collegues in that elite group. -- Iheartdrann 22:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Menace

Dear Sir If you receive a menace (threat), how you must proceed?

Thanks --Eduardo Corrêa 13:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Situation of administrator abuse

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The ContiE (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [2] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdanov Affair, Wikipedia and Arbcom

Hi,

I have just written and published on my web site an article about the way the "Bogdanov Affair" article has been written, among others about the Arbcom's role and responsibility in the writting of an article which does not respect the NPOV.

My article is entitled : "Wikipédia et l'affaire Bogdanov : "encyclopédie libre" ou dictature virtuelle ?", which means "Wikipedia and the Bogdanov affair : "free encyclopedia" or virtual dictatorship ?".

I do not know if you can read in french ; but I am sure that Rama (talk · contribs) or Ze_miguel (talk · contribs) can help you to understand the content of my article.

"Thank you" again for having been so unfair with me (among others), especially by censoring me even on the discussion pages... but on the Web nothing is discreet : censorship works only in a specific place, and even an "Arbitrator" of Wikipedia cannot prevent people from giving their opinion publically !

Laurence67

Your insults

If you feel that I edit articles "to make a point" please bring evidence to support your statement so that I can be banned from Wikipedia. If not, please withdraw your insults. I don't edit article to make a point. I am not here to make a point. People should not be here to make a point. I don't know who you feel you are to sling such unwarranted attacks. This is totally unacceptable. Guettarda 03:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carthage Abuse!

Wikipedia is a database, a Collection of "Human" Knowledge not a collection of Graco-Roman slander and biased.

I am the poster within that article who has been purifying the article from vandals and trolls, Carthage did not sacrifice children there is no proof no evidence nothing, only myths and story's there for the article should contain only FACTS about my people! Without us having to deal with every slime that gets in our way!

There are story's and myths that the Egyptians built there pyramids from the Atlanteans I dont see them having to deal with his garbage in that page.

Would you please warn those vandals who have a clear cut Graco-Roman anti-Carthaginian agenda to slander other people and other CIVILIZATIONS!

its time to end this facts is over opinion over fabrications over myth NOW lets see some action taking against the vandals

--Marduk Of Babylon

No furnace to throw babies into? Not how I remember it. Fred Bauder 14:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement review

If you have the time and interest, could you please review the proposed enforcement action at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#HK enforcement, for correctness? Though individual ArbCom cases are clear, the interactions of several cases can get complicated. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I see you have endorsed what Will Beback has requested; you have every right to that is fine. But, I ask that you consider my points in fair light. Further, there needs to be a better process for this stuff. Three admins ganging up (or a limited number) on one user over and over again? I might open an appeal of all previous decisions in light of new evidence against Slimvirgin and Will Beback if these matters continue as they are without fairness and due process being afforded to this harassed editor. What is Arbcom for if not due process procedure for editors. Then there is the final appeal to Jimbo Wales and Wikimedia, as I feel they have the greatest stake in what is occuring, namely harassment and defamation through selective use of policy. --Northmeister 14:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter

Moe is here to say Happy Easter! -- Moe ε 18:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1WW Refactor

Please see Refactor and New discussion.

You were gracious enough to comment on 1WW; as you may know there are now seven competing proposals. On April 6 I suggested that I be permitted to refactor the proposal page into a single, unified proposal. It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I think it's unwieldy, though, as it stands. A fair number of editors have commented on these distinct versions but (precisely because they are so similar) no single one has gained undisputed consensus. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy.

Just as I proposed the refactor, an editor brought to our attention yet another competing proposal, which I merged into the others, using the same format. Still another proposal has since been added, bringing the total to 7. The two new proposals are encountering an indifferent reception but they, too, have some merit.

At the time I suggested refactor, I also put myself forward as the editor to write the initial draft, based on the plurality of support for "my" version. Since the two new proposals have been added, this plurality has held.

I don't for a moment feel that this gives me any special right to dictate terms; rather I hope to draft a proposal uniting the best features of existing proposals. Unlike any of the seven currently competing versions, this refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart.

I come to your talk page today to ask for your comment on this refactor. Clearly this will be a major change to the proposal page and I don't feel comfortable being quite that bold without some expression of interest in the idea. Once the new draft is in place, I hope also for your participation to polish it into a true expression of our values. Let's move forward with this complement to WP:3RR. John Reid 04:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

retrospective changes to arbcom decisions?

Fred, could you take a look at the latest changes to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2? There's something decidedly not right about retrospective changes to arbcom decisions. -- Danny Yee 12:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the details of a vote -- there's just an addition to the arbitration page and an announcement on the Administrator's page, both dated April 22nd. That means Xed is currently banned for actions after his initially imposed parole expired but before the "new remedy" was imposed.
I understand some people find Xed a pain to deal with, but it would be nice to preserve at least the semblance of due process in dealing with him... -- Danny Yee 23:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your correction

at the arbitration I'm presently in, [[3] I have corrected my error of presentation and thank you for pointing it out. Terryeo 22:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening cases

I normally subst' the templates as instructed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures. Johnleemk | Talk 16:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FoF #2 in DarrenRay and 2006BC case

You authored FoF #2 in this case but did not cast your vote on it. Did you mean to vote for it? --207.156.196.242 14:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcosantezana

I can only comment on the Natural selection article. I would say the situation remains serious. It is not as bad as it used to be, but only because everyone else who watches the page began to revert his edits automatically, and instead of endless revert wars he now seems to wait a few days before coming back and making his changes. Nevertheless, his changes are always the same (i.e. he is not accommodating the critical points people have made on the talk page) and he does not explain himself on the talk page. He does not demonstrate any respect for other editors, or any desire to cooperate or collaborate with others. When he makes his changes - as I said, they are always the same, in effect an attempt to revert the article to changes he first made some time before the complaint was filed - he sometimes leaves edit summaries like this "restoring content; needs special section below, yes. but point is crucial for laymen to understand" that are pointless because they utterly disregard the many reasons several people earlier gave for deleting the content before, and sometimes his summaries are in my opinion obnoxious, like "all this free niche space around here and i am not going to use it; I'll accept my drift-given destiny; oh yeah; a new theory of evolution." Both of these are from April 18. Marcosantezano's last comment on the talk page was I think March 25. Since that date, he has made well over 30 edits to the article, all reverted by different users. As I said, his MO is to make many edits in a row one day (perhaps to thwart automatic reversion, but I don't think so), wait, come back several days later, and start over again. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 24 April 2006 0(UTC)

Just to give you an idea of the effect of his latest rash of edits (again, essentially restoring, bit by bit, his version of the article tthat has been rejected by all other editors working on the page), see this [4] - my point is that he is a continuing problem and if anyone has been trying to reason with him or moderate his activities, they have failed. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, may I ask.

Hello Fred. Where may I find the rejection which you say exists at my arbitration situation. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view regarding a subject. The practice of first setting forth the viewpoint of the advocates of a positive viewpoint has been considered and rejected. 

   Comment by Arbitrators:
   While I also advocate the policy Terryeo is advocating, it has been soundly rejected. Fred Bauder

Thank you.Terryeo 18:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to my question on my user page Terryeo 18:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Fred, is this your vote? Or did someone take the liberty of voting for you? agapetos_angel 14:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example you asked for

You very kindly asked me, on 28 March, for an example of what I saw as a problem. I recently located further information about the Monday Club's early 1991 crisis, notably a letter from one of the Executive Council members, a former chairman, which had been published in a major London newspaper. I went into the MC article, added the info, and cleaned up the relevant paragraphs. (You could count on one hand how many times I had previously visited that page). CJ Currie had deleted my edits saying he does not like them. I feel this is unfair especially as 80% of my re-edits were already up there. If you have a moment (and you appear to be in demand!) could you look at the edits and my comment on the Talk Page. Obviously in my profession I am more than aware of what constitutes libel/bias, but maybe I am slipping. Many thanks. Sussexman 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was very surprised by your response to my detailed comments. I have posted my reply. Sussexman 14:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Further to your post on Talk Monday Club I don't know Robert but have found the saga of passing interest. I am sorry if I became active at the wrong time or if several of us use similar grammar. That may exile quite a number of posters. The only issue I am concerned with here is what I see as the unfair reversion of my edits dealing with the late David Storey's expulsion from the Monday Club. I have posted another response. Sussexman 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinfo article

Hi Fred. I'm sorry I made that (incorrect) change to the Wikinfo article. I was sure that was either its URL or name, but upon reviewing the Internet archive I was wrong. Sorry :) - Mark 05:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arb Case Mistake

Hi, im confused about something said in a report on the Arbirition case against me.

In this report, it states that i had warred on Gothic Metal, and been placed on Probation. It also says i violated WP:CITE. I want to know how this came about, when both myself and User:Parasti provided diffs to me citing sources. It also says this as a 'finding of fact'. In which case, here is the speficic sections which falsly accuse me of not providing sources, and the evidence that supported this, and the accompnying diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu#Failure_to_cite_sources_and_original_research


Inaccurate Report Finding Of Fact Contrary To Provided Diffs

Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Parasti's Evidence. Diff from Evidence, taken from Evidence Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence. Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence taken from Leys Evidence Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence

I even went as far as to quoting and explaining the sources on the talk page, [5].

I got all these diffs from the archive of the Arbirition case, Here.

I just want to know why all eight claimed i provided no sources, even though another involved party provided diffs of me providing sources, and i repeatedly gave diffs of me supplying sources. Im not having a go, im just confused how 8 Arbirrators managed to claim a 'finding of fact' despite over 10 diffs from two different users =\ Ley Shade 14:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


SquealingPig and SquealingPigAttacksAgain

What make you think SquealingPig and SquealingPigAttacksAgain were sockpuppets of Zapatancas? Fred Bauder 19:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zapatancas made a massive revert of my edits to the Zapatero article on May 5th at 10.23 am (UTC-6). SquealingPig made the first edit [6] at the Zapatero talk page, accusing me opf being harsh at 10.43 pm on May 5th and within minyutes was seriously vandalsing my user page until blocked. So for me there has never been the slightest doubt that zapatancas and SquealingPig are the same person, and the behhaviour of Zapatancas when he returned 5 days later on May 10th, vandalising my user page etc, merely confirms this. I didn't know about check user facility at the time. All our problems stem from this first incident, and for me it is so clear that zapatancas is SquealingPig that his denials have been perceived by me as part of the same deviant behaviour. To be honest I have no idea if SquealingPigAttacksAgain was Zapatancas or not. Exhausted by him I had taken the Zapatero article off my watchlist and I perceived that he was geting biored and wanted to bate me though whereas I know for my own satisfaction that Zapatancas is SquealingPig I cannot say he is squealingPigAttacksAgain with the same certainty as it could have been another nasty individual bating both Zapatancas and I (our case has received some offsite publicity), SqueakBox 19:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


[7] and here today he has done it again but niobody as ever does anything to stop this criminal troll or blocks him for his persistyent vandalism. Please can you do something? SqueakBox 15:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, tvgenius.net video clip content is my work. I had linked to the site when I had my user page up to let people know I work there and when I took the page down thanks to the efforts of Zapatancas trying to chase me off the site I decided to just put the link in. I would certainly copnsider changing it if asked by a trustworthy admin, SqueakBox 15:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is Moe

Hello Fred, just thought I would let you know that I was leaving Wikipedia, but before I left, I finally got a picture of thyself onto Wikipedia. (I know great timing for me to post a picture of myself, right?) This is my final gift to my friends. Later! PS. Try not to laugh to hard at my ugly mug ok? Moe ε 15:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration, Tobias Conradi

Regarding:

Reject, no referral from the Mediation Committee Fred Bauder 19:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it was a minor oversight amid the lengthy filing, but the section Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried clearly states: Conradi refused mediation.

As explained to me by Redwolf24, "Conradi isn't interested in mediation it appears, so the mediation won't happen as both parties must agree. "

Also, Conradi never filed a Response to his RfC, and has not yet entered an appearance here. Although both parties must agree to Mediation, that does not seem to be applicable for Arbitration.

Thus, although no mediation was allowed, I've tried every step, and waited several more months until things came to a complete impass before bringing this for Arbitration. Had I understood that the only opportunity for an actual binding decision was Arbitration, I would not have waited so long.

--William Allen Simpson 05:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration/user Zora and others

Hi, I just came back to Wiki for today to change a tag on a picture; after this, I won’t be involved any longer; however, it is on my mind, so I’ll say it: in today’s geo-political climate where every opportunity is being grasped to try to dismember a country like Iran, or at best capitalize on some internal ethnical disputes, unfortunately many are being manipulated into making racist remarks and sympathize with the separatists ideologies. Indeed, even some countries that are not a hot potato like Iran, such as Greece, are finding themselves defending their heritage, more and more these days (Albanians are laying claimant to Macedonia). Now with that being said, many editors came here and tried to purge articles relating to Iran from inaccuracies, and found themselves in frivolous disputes. While I blew the whistle on the edit-war problems, in the course of evidence gathering though, I realised, via delineating that a certain user with aplenty time to spare, and armed with an agenda, namely user Zora had instigated the first of many of these disputes a year ago, all the while vociferously labeling the other editors as Nationalists; fascists and others, which really unjustly indicates those who opposed her may be chauvinist, bigots etc. Upon a review, I see this user had selectively self-designated herself as a Semi-involved party; yet, after all the obvious diffs pointing towards incivilities, a one-sided editing motto, and the fact that she still is disputing contents that frankly were/are simply historically inaccurate, the committee has issued a mere caution warning[8]? And, a user such as I, who had not participated in edit-wars as of early March/06 (I joined Wiki in Feb/06), is given a possible topical ban? The fair recommendation would have been to at least include users like Zora in the probation along with others. Sadly, the down side to this lackluaster efforts, most likely due lack of adequate time for the arbitrators to properly review the case--is, the fact such imbalanced proposals causes some not to take this institution as seriously as they would have liked to. You should really try to promote an atmosphere of purer academics here, and come down hard on [all] sides that with a click on a key-board, inject politics into an encyclopedia. You certainly don’t want the reputation of the site being as untrustworthy. Salute.Zmmz 09:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this item re: Terryeo's RfA

I made a suggestion on one of the RfA talk pages that has spontaneously gained a number of endorsements from others.[9] Please take a look. Thanks. BTfromLA 16:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I hope this isn't out of line, but I wanted to ask (for my own curiosity if nothing else) why you decided to accept the case against me, especially when it's such a recent incident and no other dispute resolution has been attempted. I know it's probably too late, and I should have mentioned it in my statement, but I for one would be quite open to mediation, as Simonapro does seem like a good user, and just needs to become more familiar with the way wikipedia works. --InShaneee 23:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, some links that may be of interest to both of you: [10]; [11], [12], [13]. —Viriditas | Talk 09:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Monicasdude

Since you are engaged on the decision talk page, I hope it is not out of line to bring this to your personal attention. [14] Thanks for your attention. Thatcher131 03:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merecat Checkuser

I've updated the reopen request with the link to the recent Merecat checkuser (I'll repost it here as well). Thank you for your attention. [15]

Wikipedia's Integrity: Does Anybody Care?

Over the last few months I have worked hard to raise a red flag about extremist groups using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. I have now brought the issue to the attention of those at the very highest levels within the Wikipedia community.

Now that I have gone through all of Wikipedia's bureaucratic hoops, what steps are being taken to correct the problem? How are policies being changed to prevent advocacy groups from using Wikipedia to disseminate propaganda?

There is widespread agreement that "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is not an impartial article written by impartial people, but nobody cares enough to fix the problem. Is leaving the same group of editors in charge of the same article supposed to produce different results somehow? How long will it be before the article claims a correlation between natural disasters and Protestantism again? Now that this has been brought to the attention of the powers that be, what mechanism has been put into place to prevent that from happening again?

Can it be that nobody in the Wikipedia community, including ArbCom and Jimbo, cares about the integrity of Wikipedia? I have suggested several approaches to help prevent this kind of misuse of Wikipedia in the future. Is Wikipedia going to adopt these approaches, or will you continue to ignore the problem and discipline whistleblowers instead?

We all know that ArbCom knows how to give users the boot - they do it all the time - but who is going to actually fix the problem?

Lou franklin 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA: Messhermit

  • Due to College and Finals, I was absent from Wikipedia for quite a long time and I did not prepare a good defense or evidence in my RFA page. I have now provided the necessary information that will make this RFA more balance. I would gladly accept the outcome of the RFA once my information is contrasted with the other party involved in the dispute.
  • Thus, since you were part of the arbitration board that has already casted a vote without having the oportunity to hear my defense, I would like you to read my evidence that I have just presented, and in these sense reafirm your decition or change it after reading both sides of the story. Thank you. Messhermit╪

Comments on an Arbitration Case

Hello. Being you one of the Arbitrators involved in the ArbCom case Messhermit, I would like to bring to your notice that the Paquisha War article, which is on my watchlist, has seen some activity these last few days. Some edits made there by an anonymous IP user (84.71.145.217) were reverted by another IP user (147.70.124.109) [16]. I strongly believe that the IP address 147.70.124.109 was used by Messhermit. Considering that the case is penalizing, among other things, edit-warring behavior, I would like to know if I should inform the other Arbitrators about this event, or if it has be investigated in the context of the case.
Thank you. Andrés C. 14:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I have to protest this baseless accusations. So any modifications that any IP makes that is "approved" by Andres C. is right (because curiously [17] the IP editions deleted an important source and it support some complains that Andres C. more or less states regarding the article), while the ones that does not like his ideals are immediately awarded to Messhermit? I think that this accusation is biased, and demand that an apology must be stated.
  2. This is my last comment in your "Talk Page". I'm disappointed, and please accept my apologies for the actions of the other party involved in this dispute. Messhermit 13:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding "civility"

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.

Monicasdude

Not licensed, no rights released