Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deeceevoice (talk | contribs) at 05:31, 12 May 2006 (Your case before the ArbCom). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Misplaced Pages -- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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.

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

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)