[atlarge-discuss] Opposing the motion to permanently ban Jeff Williams

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

What does a family do when one of their members is chronically mentally ill 
and needs to be on powerful psychotropic drugs for the rest of his life?

Since 1998, when Jeff wrote to the U.S. Government and stated that all 24,000 
members of INEG "unanimously" voted to approve a model set of proposed bylaws 
for ICANN, we have all known that Jeff is given to delusions and 
prevarications.  His outrageous claims (well-documented in a variety of JW FAQs), and his 
fantasy INEGroup that has now grown to 131,000 non-existent members, are all 
symptoms of this particular illness.  This latest episode is nothing more than 
more-of-the-same, a non-normative mental state that has now taken a tangential 
form of expression -- email falsification.  

Jeff has been tolerated on this and other lists over the years precisely 
because most of us have a certain amount of compassion for the mentally ill.  

Yes, it can be particularly aggravating and frustating to communicate with 
folks that have such problems (especially when they take the form associated 
with schizophrenia  -- preoccupation with systematized delusions related to a 
single theme, argumentativeness, and an extreme intensity in interpersonal 
interaction), but this is the challenge that faces a family when one of their own is 
afflicted.  

The Panel of this organization has put forth a motion that states in part, 
"it is decided that Jeff Williams is permanently removed from the memberlist, 
general list and that the organization declares him personae non grata to this 
organization.  That upon acceptance an email is send to the GNSO, GA and NIST 
list with the message that Jeff Williams has been banned from this 
organization".

Is this how members in an enlightened society deal with the mentally ill?   
Is banishment, and widespread publication of such banishment, the proper course 
of action, or is it an overreaction?  

In the past, Jeff has been sanctioned on other lists for different periods of 
time (mostly for exceeding established posting limits).  As a general rule, 
he learns from the experience and modifies his behavior for a period of time.  
This organization would be well-served by a set of rules and sanctions 
governing list behavior.  Jeff is not the only offending party on these lists.  In 
recent days I have noted the intensity of personal attacks with epithets being 
hurled such as "cowdungboy".  This type of behavior should similarly not be 
tolerated in civil society.

My recommendation to the Panel would be as follows:

1.  Banning Jeff from the list for a period of time for this infraction (not 
permanently)
2.  Banning those that have engaged in personal attacks (also for a limited 
period of time) 
3.  Establishing rules and penalties governing list behavior
4.  Formalizing a moderated list environment with watchdogs being given the 
duty of ruling on violations

I ask the Panel to consider modifying their motion.



 


 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de