[WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:21:16 -0500, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
wrote:

It's not me, Jimmy, but I will put my name to it.  MONGO should go on
a Wikibreak but should absolutely not be hounded out of the project
(which is in effect what has happened).  He has dealt tirelessly with
the 9/11 "truthers", whose tactics begin in the sewer and get steadily
worse over time.

This is, without question, a victory for the trolls.

Of course MONGO should have held back, and we, his friends and fellow
admins, should have helped him to do that, but I suspect that the
decision is not going to be a popular one.  A one month block to cool
off?  I could get behind that.  Desysopping?  I don't think I can
agree with that. Maybe time will lend perspective, but right now it
looks like kicking a man while he's down.

>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
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG