Forum:Support for Special Needs

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

Forums: Index → War Room → Support for Special Needs

I've noticed that people on the wiki have never really thought about special needs. People may have something wrong with them and are just trying to fit in and they don't know how. People could have had something happening in their life which causes something to happen. I believe we work out something that means that if people have something wrong and it's evident, we do something about it and give them support. And for special needs, well we can help them act nicer on the wiki and if all else fails, then try maybe a harsher method, but keeps them good. However if we end up blocking someone who's got the special needs that makes them extremely smart (a bit like my own, only I can control it) there's a much bigger danger of getting hacked, as most hackers are special needs. Taking this into account, we can actually change lives as well as help people and the fast learner special need types can be useful for making the wiki better. It's a hard move, but can be great in the long run. YELLOWLUCARIO ^TALK 17:01, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[]

What are you suggesting? Shotrocket6 (T/C/E) 19:20, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

What? "someone who's got the special needs that makes them extremely smart (a bit like my own, only I can control it)" Sounds like you're tooting your own horn there. And what are you proposing? We be nicer to people who claim they have special needs? User:Sactage/s.js 19:21, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what you're talking about. You give completely random reasoning like "most hackers are special needs" and "there's a much bigger danger of getting hacked". What does this mean? Is that supposed to be an insult? I do give thought about people who have special needs and I work alongside people with special needs from time to time. But I really still don't know what you're talking about YR. Smart people don't get special treatment, so I'm not sure what your point is about banning smart people. 19:30, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

This forum could also be taken as a massive insult by those with special needs. I have very, very bad anger problems. Am I going to be excused for ranting at someone/something just because I have these problems? No. No one gets special treatment which excuses them of certain actions. If this were to somehow pass, and someone came along and said "I sometimes feel the sudden urge to remove content from pages, please excuse me if I do this", which was just a blatant lie, are we really going to have to excuse him, because he said he does this sort of thing? While it's important to assume good faith, not everyone has good intentions and people do lie about these things.

22:39, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

...and you managed to overcome it. The user would have to provide EVIDENCE, of course. We could tell from the start that some people had something wrong with them, but sometimes it gets harder. But in a nutshell, this may just be an enhancement/screwup of AEAE YELLOWLUCARIO ^TALK 11:28, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

huh? You claim to have that Special Needs thingy, but... you also say you "have to provide EVIDENCE, of course", but I haven't seen you provide any evidence. How are you going to prove you have Special Needs or something? Joeytje50^talk ^{i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA} 11:57, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

But I don't manage to overcome it.

12:08, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Per everyone else: What are you suggesting? Or even talking about, for that matter? D_47 19:36, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about, OP? I've had something that usually is classed as a special need nearly all my life, and I've never got/needed any special care on the wiki. Sgt. S.S. 19:39, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. In fact, if we hadn't said it, would you be able to tell? Raven's wing ^Talk20:34, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

k, so I'll just vandalise your userpage then blame it on bipolarism. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 20:32, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Are we going to let a user who goes on a sudden vandalism spree get away with it if he claims he has schizophrenia? Sgt. S.S. 20:41, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

If this passes (Which I don't think it will), we might as well scrap THIS. Reznov115^Talk 21:26, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's assume this passes. What exactly can we do and how can we prevent people from lying about it? This isn't like making a building more accessible to special needs people by adding ramps, braille signs, etc. Carbonite 0 21:36, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ooh braille signs. Yeah, let's make computer screens have braille on them for blind people. Could someone please invent a braille computer screen? cool :3 Joeytje50^talk ^{i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA} 11:57, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

The thing I understand of this is, if someone vandalises a page, he can get away by having he has problems in his life? Oh, so I'll go on a UTP/DBAD breaching spree because my GF dumped me and I can't download my anger in anything else.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}22:35, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

So if I say I have a "special need" to become an admin and vandalize the wiki, no one has a problem with it?Hip-techboy ^Christmas

I'll be honest, Riolu, you've had some better moments. This isn't in the least bit feasible. I'll be perfectly honest with you all, I don't believe a special needs editor requires more attention than a 'normal' (i'm sorry, I dont know another word to describe it) editor. In other words, if this passes by some off chance, I won't go out of my way to discover these things. Some of the things about users in the section below I was better off not knowing (not that I think of any of them differently) about them. Some things about yourself should be kept off the internet. Rambo362 04:05, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

I really have nothing else to say other than what's been said. Smuff's sizable rant below pretty much sums up how I feel about this proposal. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 05:03, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Smuff needs a section for his rant[]

This idea is stupid. Although I shant do it on the basis of I'd be an asshole if I did, I could give you a list of the mental and physical diseases and conditions that even just some of the admin team have. And let me tell you something, it's a big list. I have biploarism, Gage has Plantar fasciitis (he mentionned this on his userpage once, hope he doesn't mind), Sarge has Asperger syndrome; these are just some of the conditions wikians will publically admit alone.

But what about if you're a new editor? Half the reason I admit to depression and my home life being what it is (I have two disabled parents, 6 year old brother I have I have to look after and a bulimic sister who does fuck all to help, so now you know) is that I trust people not to go shitstirring. But what about if you are new and don't trust people to know about your condition. If I was a new editor and I had Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (there's users who have that right here on this wiki y'know), would I go shoving that in people's faces? No, I would not.

Doing this would alienate new users who actually do suffer from illness. There's no way in hell I'd ever let that happen; it's borderline discrimination. In the EU, it's illegal to call people "handicapped" by itself. (I know this is a US site, but I'm talking about the principle of it). How do you think people would feel if the first thing we ask them is "Ohaidar! Do you have any mental conditions that may end up leading you to vandalise the wiki?" If I got asked that when I first edit a new wiki I'd bugger off instantly.

How do we even know if users are bullshitting or not? This is the internet, people bullshit about their lives all the time. Even I'm not on one, I could easily say "Sorry I vandalised, I was on a really bad low because of my condition, and if you ban me I might kill myself." It's too easy a system to abuse. Don't believe me? Whilst I hope he doesn't mind me saying this, at one point we thought Maj. Blackout killed himself; this thankfully turned out to be a lie created by his ex. The moral of this is you can't go by what people much. If some random new person does for some reason turn up, vandalise the entire wiki and then says, "Sorry, I was sleepwalking and my doctor says I do stupid things when I do, please don't ban me," and we let him go, simply put, we're fucked.

Plus, I can't even work out how the hell you managed to come up with this stupid idea. I truely cannot. Did you not even consider wondering why other wikis don't do it? On the whole on wikia, I can guarantee you not one wiki will have a simular scheme in place. See if they do have some condition? It's their job to control it. My mother has Multiple Sclerosis, she has to take Nabilone tablets as a pain killer. You know what that is? Medicinal. Cannabis. My father has Rheumatoid arthritis and he takes steroid injections to help reduce the effects. I look after a 6 year old practically 24/7. I take prozac. But do I burn it all off by vandalising the wiki? No. It is up to the individual to control whatever their problem is; it is not our duty to work around them.

What's next? If we pass this, you'll get the inevitable "My RfA didn't pass because you're all racists." And see if that does crop up? We'll be in some deep shit. It doesn't matter if you're in a minority or not, ALL editors are equal. (Sorry for bringing you into this) Callofduty4 has an Indian family, yet this doesn't radiate from the way he edits. I wouldn't even have known if he didn't explicitly state this. We don't have the god given right to hand out user privilages to people on the basis of race, it's the same principle here. Passing this simply would be discrimination. We wouldn't be respecting people for what they are; we'd be singling them out and essentially laughing at them. So yes, there is no way in hell this will EVER pass, be it on the community's hands or mine. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 22:49, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

In short, this proposal is retarded. Get it? Poketape ^Talk 00:57, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

I liked your rant, it's very interesting...Hiptechboy 01:11, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

One thing I would like to point out is the people listed here, here, and here. —Unsigned comment was added by Azuris

It's not a proposal as SUCH, but the thing is we do need to care about these people, and technically not doing so could be a breach of UTP. We have been given different problems, and even if we can't control them, helping the people may be the key, as said by the "hacker-prevention" If you think this is stupid, I'm fine about that, just it's worth considering that people are different and we all deserve to be treated like equals, even if this means someone gets a bit more care, in the long run will be a help. YELLOWLUCARIO ^TALK 11:25, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

How can someone get "more care" and then be "treated like equals"? That's almost like saying 1 = 2, it doesn't make any sense. As I said before I know you probably mean good for this, but it isn't feasible, it isn't fair and some of the points you raised are just otherworldly.

12:11, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know there is COD:NOT#OTHER, but still I'd like to give you guys an example off the RSWiki. There is an user called Parsonsda who claims that he can't help it that he keeps lying, faking images and when he gets frustrated, insulting others (FUCK OFF YOU FUCKING COW!!!!!). He had many warnings, many more than any other user on the rswiki ever (he insulted more people than megan while megan got blocked way earlier than parsons), and still he did not change. He just kept doing those things. If we would be going to give "special" people more chances to ruin, it won't help a single bit. If someone does not learn the first time, they will very likely not learn other times either. I got blocked on rswiki once, and even an one day block should let you learn your lesson enough to never do such thing again. If it doesn't, you are just not someone who fits on a social place like a wiki, and you should probably look for something else. If you are doing harm to the wiki, and do not learn from corrections or even blocks, you just don't fit here. Oh and it is discrimination to treat "special" people worse than "normal" people, so it is also discrimination to treat them better. It is also the exact opposite of COD:AEAE. Anyway, you might want to think about what you're proposing before pressing the save button, and maybe ask others for advice, and if they like your idea. That way you won't get this many negative comments. Joeytje50^talk ^{i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA} 12:18, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

"As I said before I know you probably mean good for this" CoD4 you understand, and Joey you have a point. If that guy was like that then that would be the RSWiki's fault, and would be mine if we had done the same. Having the problems yourself means that it's hard to understand this. (and stop with these long comments it's a waste of time)

Case closed. Lock this thing up we're done here. YELLOWLUCARIO ^TALK 12:27, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Closed — No further discussion is needed on this topic. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 12:35, August 29, 2011 (UTC)