User talk:FeloniousMonk/Archive August 2005

My view on why ignoring chronically abusive editors is wrong
If wikipedia is anything it is proof that information wants to be useful. Those editors who believe that editors sending fellow editors emails like this is acceptable behavior would like nothing more than to gain the sanction of the victim. Such is the goal of every right-thinking bully. Silence on the part of any victim is nothing more than permission or approval granted by the victim to the person that is attacking him. No doubt Sam prefers that concrete evidence of his uncivil, anti-wikipedia behavior were not readily available for other editors to judge. However, every honest man benefits from free exchange of information. Wikipedia is only as effective as it's editors are open to criticism. Those facts suffice to conclude in good faith that Sam Spade exploited a policy loophole to attack a fellow editor in a way that would not normally be tolerated by the wikipedia community, a fact he admits, and cynically attempted to game the systemto cover up his crimes and engaged in vexatious litigation to try to silence his mark. This conclusion neither involves nor relies upon rhetorical hyperbole that amounts to defamation or personal attack.

That we have an editor abusing the wikipedia email function to make insulting personal attacks without fear of being held accountable and then cynically gaming the system to cover it up raises issues far beyond a personal vendetta or a grudge irrelevant to public concerns. Drawing responsible conclusions from the public record of chronically abusive editors and voicing them serves the public interest; it alerts the community to those who hold its values in contempt, warns the unware, and serves notice on the offender. Until the time chronically abusive, refractory editors redeem themselves, the community is served by the spread of knowlege of their history. I will neither tolerate nor reward with my silence anyone who cynically abuses policy and the system to attack fellow editors and to hide the crime, nor will I support anyone who mistakenly thinks that excusing such behavior it is the right response. Information wants to be valuable. Without Sam changing his behavior, this story and others will eventually reach every editor of wikipedia. It will shape their dealings with him. Choose your sides accordingly. FeloniousMonk 22:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for all of this. You deserve better. FuelWagon 00:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, FM. I have nothing useful to add at this time, so this spam would have to do. :) El_C 07:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)