I am inclined to agree with Guy on all of his points.
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:21:16 -0500, Jimmy Wales jwales@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@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@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@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l