[WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

[Jimmy Wales]

I would be much more inclined to intervene if you were willing to put 
your reputation on the line and make the defense publicly, rather than 
under a pseudonym and throwaway email address.

Concerned Wikipedian wrote:
> Mr Wales,
> 
> I am hereby writing to you to express my displeasure and discontent at
> "your" Arbitration Committee's decision to desysop MONGO, one of the most
> dedicated and resilient users Wikipedia has ever seen.
> 
> MONGO has had to put up with every kind of harassment you could think of; by
> definition of [[WP:HA]], a number of users that have forced him into his
> mental decline should have been blocked and/or banned ages ago.
> 
> So, I officially protest this decision, and wish you to evaluate it. Given
> your ability to veto any decision made by the AC, I hereby request that if
> you agree with my sentiment, you use this to stop Wikipedia from losing yet
> another prolific administrator and user to the abyss of trolls and vandals -
> RickK springs to mind as another.
> 
> Last time I checked, MONGO wasn't the only administrator who could, on
> occasion, skirt the guidelines of civility. I could name 15 or so who do it
> worse than he does, and yet it is him who takes the fall.
> 
> MONGO stood up for NPOV, something you yourself should extremely proud of -
> Wikipedia wouldn't be Wikipedia without servants like MONGO who try to keep
> unverified rubbish out, in accordance with "What Wikipedia is not", as well
> as "Neutral Point of View". Further, your relentless push of making
> Wikipedia fully verified through "Verifiability" and "Reliable Sources",
> which I commend you for emphasising, was one of MONGO's ideals, and
> something he sought to try and create under your direction.
> 
> There is no denying that MONGO may have overstepped his mark once or twice;
> I would be a fool to say so. What I will say, however, is your ArbCom has
> previously found that "occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with [the
> role] – administrators are not expected to be perfect". I believe that,
> given the crap, for want of a better word, that MONGO has had to deal with
> in his fight to uphold your, and Wikipedia's, values, he should be given
> leeway in this precedent.
> 
> You yourself said that "The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a
> solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that
> I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the
> whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely,
> and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves
> Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last
> safety valve for our values". I feel that it is your turn to stand up and be
> counted, Jimmy, to stand up for our values. Wikipedians are not perfect;
> administrators are not perfect, by the same token; nor should administrators
> be expected to be unflappable in the face of persistent, ridiculous trolling
> and harassment that MONGO has had to.
> 
> Cometh the hour, cometh the man; will you be the man, or will the hour slip
> you by? I hope you can see the devastation that this would cause Wikipedia
> should you decide that the Arbitration Committee, which is becoming more and
> more dissented by members of the community as segregated, has somehow got
> this one right.
> 
> The question you must ask yourself, in the spirit of IAR: If this decision
> will be detrimental to improving or maintaining Wikipedia more than the
> opposite decision will be, ignore it. You made this official policy on
> August 19, 2006 stating "IAR is policy, always has been". I feel that this
> is as good a time as any to apply its' principle.
> 
> -- Concerned Wikipedian
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>