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
