[WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

Tue Dec 12 10:43:11 UTC 2006

I am inclined to agree with Guy on all of his points.

On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

-- 
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/