User talk:Monicasdude

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] I ain't gonna work on Jimbo's farm no more

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

[edit] Your case before the ArbCom

I haven't followed your case closely, but its clear to me that you are a highly intelligent, highly literate, no-nonsense contributor of value to the project. It's also clear to me that you're being unfairly singled out for alleged conduct which is widespread and which usually goes unremarked upon when indulged in by others (some of whom are the chief complainants -- and deliberators -- against you).

It's no secret that I hold the ArbCom in contempt. I think the proposed sanctions against you are relative b.s. (but fairly par for the course). If for any reason you decide to continue to edit here and wish to weigh in on a VfD/Afd proceeding in any way, shape or form, I invite you to pass on your concerns/commentary to me (assuming I'm still here, something which I wouldn't lay odds on). I have not been banned -- yet -- from the VfD/Afd process and would be all too happy to pass your opinions on, provided I have no strenuous objection to them. The sanction being considered in this regard is, IMO, overly harsh --particularly in light of the fact that over-the-top, off-subject and often nasty commentary is par for the course in such matters and goes on constantly and usually without comment of any sort by the civility patrol. The ArbCom case complaints are just another example of a "piling on" phenomenon, which is a particular sickness of the project.

I, frankly, have lost my taste for contributing to the project, other than directing/commenting upon systemic bias and the contributions of others and doing vandalism/racism patrol on various articles. It's simply not worth the aggravation and time wasting caused by precisely the kind of animus- and ignorance-motivated Afd/Vfd-ing and carping and complaining you address in the ArbCom proceeding. Like you, I suspect, I have better things to do with my time.

And so it would surprise me not at all should you leave the project. It's a trend, it seems. And the project -- already a cesspool of biases/racism; abysmal ignorance; WASP-ish provincialism; and administrative misfeasance, malfeasance, malice and abject ineptitude/incompetence -- is the poorer for it. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 05:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude closed

This arbitration case is closed.

Monicasdude is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. Monicasdude is banned from making edits related to the deletion process (excepting obvious vandalism and copyright problems) for one year. This is to be interpreted broadly, and includes, but is not limited to, commenting on articles for deletion nominations and removals of nominations for proposed deletion and speedy deletion. He may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Should Monicasdude violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Monicasdude#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You've done some good work

I have left a couple of thank you notes on your talk page in the past, when I've noticed you have done some good research on AfD subjects, bringing to light information about the subject, which other editors were not aware of and had not done any research to find out. I understand your frustration that there can at times seem to be a lower standard of inquiry than one would hope for, and that furthermore you may not wish to continue in an arena where this occurs. However, there are also editors who maintain the highest standards. In fact, as Wiki is an open project there's editors in all shapes and sizes, and all levels of ability. You would certainly be an asset if you continue to employ your talents on Wiki, and helped others to develop their abilities also. Tyrenius 17:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have my support

I managed to link to this page from the talk pages of some people, and despite the fact that I have little to nothing to do with your editing practices, you have my full support. I think many Wikipedia editors, especially the ones who have participated the longest, are some of the most stuck-up assholes. Wikipedia is a product monitored by elitists (such as User:Crzrussian) and a website that I question my participation in every day. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 06:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say that though I participated in evidence against you, it was in defense of others rather than accusations against you. I stand by what I said in an archived comment; I think you are a good contributor on the whole. I still assume good faith in your editing, and I would like to think that I played a part in keeping more extreme action being taken (for what that's worth). Contact me any time. Teke 03:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sympathies

Would like to add my sympathies, and regret at an overly harsh judgement. AnonEMouse 17:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, I wish I had been there to comment during the case. Please consider returning! Ardric47 05:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This might interest you: User:Robchurch is up for admin[1] -- again

After reviewing your case and the sanctions imposed against you and then seeing that Rob Church was up for admin only 10 days after (later admittedly) fabricating evidence against me before the ArbCom, and that less than six months later it appears his admin privileges are going to be restored, I had to stop by. What b.s.! deeceevoice 16:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All around the mulberry bush

Testing, testing 1-2-3. JDG 07:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Paul Hernandez (photographer)

--TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holland & Hart

Since you felt so strongly in the AFD discussion [& Hart AFD] perhaps might like to take a part in expanding this article seeing that it is still a stub eight months on?