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
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
Hear, hear. Good decision. Seriously, the second I saw "Concerned Wikipedian" as the person I knew that this would be something trollish like this. Seriously now, make the plea openly instead of hiding behind "Concerned Wikipedian".
On 12/12/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
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
I would, if I could be assured that my actions wouldn't result in trolling to the levels that MONGO and others have had to endure. I'd be happy to, but I'd rather contribute more to the encyclopaedia, rather than be driven away like other users have.
On 12/12/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hear, hear. Good decision. Seriously, the second I saw "Concerned Wikipedian" as the person I knew that this would be something trollish like this. Seriously now, make the plea openly instead of hiding behind "Concerned Wikipedian".
On 12/12/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
Hear, hear. Good decision. Seriously, the second I saw "Concerned Wikipedian" as the person I knew that this would be something trollish like this. Seriously now, make the plea openly instead of hiding behind "Concerned Wikipedian".
On 12/12/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
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.
I'm curious about two things here:
1. Where's the arbcom decision? 2. Why was your email in GB2312?
1. At 5/0, it's a foregone conclusion. 2. I have no idea...
Further, the response that this email got in #wikipedia further enhances my response:
<1> Ohman, drama on wikien-l <2> :3 what kind of drama? <1> Arbcom style. <2> ooh <1> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-December/058214.html <3> Luna-San: haha, I just got that <4> Arbcom drama's the best kind
On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious about two things here:
- Where's the arbcom decision?
- Why was your email in GB2312?
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Concerned Wikipedian wrote:
On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious about two things here:
- Where's the arbcom decision?
- At 5/0, it's a foregone conclusion.
I said /where/, not /what/.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Pro...
Jimmy, that offer I sent to you via private email is open.
On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
I said /where/, not /what/.
Concerned Wikipedian wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Pro...
Jimmy, that offer I sent to you via private email is open.
The offer was to meet in irc, but unfortunately I went to bed before I saw it. Well, I am in irc often, so anytime. :)
As to public critique of ArbCom decisions, I fail to grasp why you think it would be a big deal. It seems quite easy to phrase your dissent in a respectful and thoughtful manner that everyone will admire, even if they are not convinced.
"I believe that a ArbCom decision to desysop Mongo would be unwise because:"
No one is going to troll you about that.
--Jimbo
NSLE: I suggest you reconsider your position with this in mind - your name is almost certainly not NSLE or Chacor. I know my r/w name is not KillerChihuahua. The majority of Wikipedians and Wikipedia administrators do not contribute under their real names, and for good reason. The same logic which makes using a "handle" on Wikipedia in general a Good Idea also applies here. MONGO has been the target of massive trolling and harassment. It shows good sense to try to insulate oneself from becoming a target of the same people, and the Concerned Wikipedian is doing precisely that. I fail to see how that makes his or her concern any less valid. How precisely are you defining this as "trolling"? I see no trolling, and would appreciate it if you would share your logic with me and the others on this list, as apparently I have missed something.
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
Hear, hear. Good decision. Seriously, the second I saw "Concerned Wikipedian" as the person I knew that this would be something trollish like this. Seriously now, make the plea openly instead of hiding behind "Concerned Wikipedian".
On 12/12/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hear, hear, well put. :\
Even *with* a handle, a number of Wikipedians have been outted re their r/w identities -- something that clearly precludes using one's real name, especially as some of the more I'm-going-to-stick-my-nose-in-your-private-life employers frown on Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. Thus, anonymity is no excuse for not heeding a person's concerns -- in fact, in the real world, some of the best tips received by law enforcement, tax administration, SEC violations, etc., are anonymous. As KC noted earlier, it is the content that matters not the source, and in this case the content is valid.
I too, am desirous of an explanation on how CW's post could, by any stretch of the definition and imagination, be considered trolling. CW raises a very real problem, to call it trolling or to dismiss it outright because it is anonymous is simply a matter of "let's intimidate CW into divulging his/her real name or else just sweep yet another problem under the rug". This is simply unacceptable.
On 12/12/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
NSLE: I suggest you reconsider your position with this in mind - your name is almost certainly not NSLE or Chacor. I know my r/w name is not KillerChihuahua. The majority of Wikipedians and Wikipedia administrators do not contribute under their real names, and for good reason. The same logic which makes using a "handle" on Wikipedia in general a Good Idea also applies here. MONGO has been the target of massive trolling and harassment. It shows good sense to try to insulate oneself from becoming a target of the same people, and the Concerned Wikipedian is doing precisely that. I fail to see how that makes his or her concern any less valid. How precisely are you defining this as "trolling"? I see no trolling, and would appreciate it if you would share your logic with me and the others on this list, as apparently I have missed something.
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
Hear, hear. Good decision. Seriously, the second I saw "Concerned Wikipedian" as the person I knew that this would be something trollish
like
this. Seriously now, make the plea openly instead of hiding behind "Concerned Wikipedian".
On 12/12/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
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
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
Thus, anonymity is no excuse for not heeding a person's concerns -- in fact, in the real world, some of the best tips received by law enforcement, tax administration, SEC violations, etc., are anonymous. As KC noted earlier, it is the content that matters not the source, and in this case the content is valid.
When someone anonymously reports a crime, they are reporting a verifiable fact (if the appropriate authorities cannot verify it, they won't do anything about it). The Concerned Wikipedian's email did not contain facts, it contained opinions (any facts stated were already known to anyone following the case). Therefore, it is not comparable to an anonymous tip off.
On 12/12/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Thus, anonymity is no excuse for not heeding a person's concerns -- in fact, in the real world, some of the best tips received by law enforcement, tax administration, SEC violations, etc.,
are
anonymous. As KC noted earlier, it is the content that matters not the source, and in this case the content is valid.
When someone anonymously reports a crime, they are reporting a verifiable fact (if the appropriate authorities cannot verify it, they won't do anything about it). The Concerned Wikipedian's email did not contain facts, it contained opinions (any facts stated were already known to anyone following the case). Therefore, it is not comparable to an anonymous tip off.
True, it was a bit light on details...nonetheless, the point regarding anonymity remains. Thus, rather than berate him for wishing to be anonymous, tell him he needs to provide details in order to move forward.
--- Puppy puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
MONGO has been the target of massive trolling and harassment. It shows good sense to try to insulate oneself from becoming a target of the same people
Since "Concerned Wikipedian" was appealing to Jimbo, he might wish to communicate with Jimbo via private e-mail using his Wikipedia identity.
In a noisy environment, it's not a bad heuristic to use reputation in order to evaluate how seriously we should take someone's comments.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Matt R wrote:
--- Puppy puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
MONGO has been the target of massive trolling and harassment. It shows good sense to try to insulate oneself from becoming a target of the same people
Since "Concerned Wikipedian" was appealing to Jimbo, he might wish to communicate with Jimbo via private e-mail using his Wikipedia identity.
In a noisy environment, it's not a bad heuristic to use reputation in order to evaluate how seriously we should take someone's comments.
Exactly. Several good people have said that they do not agree with the desysopping of MONGO, using their own good names to do it, and I don't see any problem with that. We are a diverse community, and we are not required to agree on everything. In particular, we must have a culture of open tolerance for dissent and debate as a form of proper check on our actions.
A culture in which people anonymously take potshots at other people's decisions is not a healthy one.
--Jimbo
I'm not asking them to reveal their name, am I? Just their Wiki handle. It may just be me (although I suspect many, many more people do too), but anyone under a name "Concerned Wikipedian" doesn't earn any points in my book. Especially relevant, given we're talking about privacy (I wouldn't put it past WikiReview idiots to be using such handles).
On-topic, though, I see no reason not to go through with it. I cannot believe people are using the mailing list to appeal to Jimbo to lighten a sentence on an admin - being handled by the ARBCOM - for something which is obviously de-sysop-able for. Others haven't gotten that consideration, so why start now? The ArbCom are technically independent from Jimbo, and I don't see why he should intervene.
On 12/12/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
NSLE: I suggest you reconsider your position with this in mind - your name is almost certainly not NSLE or Chacor. I know my r/w name is not KillerChihuahua. The majority of Wikipedians and Wikipedia administrators do not contribute under their real names, and for good reason. The same logic which makes using a "handle" on Wikipedia in general a Good Idea also applies here. MONGO has been the target of massive trolling and harassment. It shows good sense to try to insulate oneself from becoming a target of the same people, and the Concerned Wikipedian is doing precisely that. I fail to see how that makes his or her concern any less valid. How precisely are you defining this as "trolling"? I see no trolling, and would appreciate it if you would share your logic with me and the others on this list, as apparently I have missed something.
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
Hear, hear. Good decision. Seriously, the second I saw "Concerned Wikipedian" as the person I knew that this would be something trollish
like
this. Seriously now, make the plea openly instead of hiding behind "Concerned Wikipedian".
On 12/12/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
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
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
The ArbCom are technically independent from Jimbo, and I don't see why he should intervene.
They're not that independent. They are appointed by Jimbo and Jimbo maintains a veto over all their decisions. If he wants to intervene he can and should. I see no reason to in this case, though.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
The ArbCom are technically independent from Jimbo, and I don't see why he should intervene.
They're not that independent. They are appointed by Jimbo and Jimbo maintains a veto over all their decisions. If he wants to intervene he can and should. I see no reason to in this case, though.
In point of fact, I have never overruled any ArbCom decision nor am I likely to do so and I appoint only after approval by the community.
I am very active on the ArbCom mailing list, but only in an advisory capacity, and the function I play there is very similar to the function I try to play everywhere... which is to build consensus and try to find common ground. It's pretty easy to build common ground on the arbcom because by the very nature of our election process, the people who make it to the arbcom tend to be quite sane and open to reasonable compromise.
In a case like this, the MONGO case, I am quite sure that all the ArbCom are reading with great interest to learn what various trustworthy community members think of things. It seems likely to me that we will soon be discussing it on the ArbCom and try to find a solution that will work broadly for everyone.
This is the wikipedia way. (When it is working well, at least. :) )
--Jimbo
On Dec 12, 2006, at 5:04 AM, NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
I'm not asking them to reveal their name, am I? Just their Wiki handle. It may just be me (although I suspect many, many more people do too), but anyone under a name "Concerned Wikipedian" doesn't earn any points in my book. Especially relevant, given we're talking about privacy (I wouldn't put it past WikiReview idiots to be using such handles).
On-topic, though, I see no reason not to go through with it. I cannot believe people are using the mailing list to appeal to Jimbo to lighten a sentence on an admin - being handled by the ARBCOM - for something which is obviously de-sysop-able for. Others haven't gotten that consideration, so why start now? The ArbCom are technically independent from Jimbo, and I don't see why he should intervene.
Feedback is good.
Fred
Interesting word choices there.
On 12/12/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not asking them to reveal their name, am I? Just their Wiki handle. It may just be me (although I suspect many, many more people do too), but anyone under a name "Concerned Wikipedian" doesn't earn any points in my book. Especially relevant, given we're talking about privacy (I wouldn't put it past WikiReview idiots to be using such handles).
On-topic, though, I see no reason not to go through with it. I cannot believe people are using the mailing list to appeal to Jimbo to lighten a sentence on an admin - being handled by the ARBCOM - for something which is obviously de-sysop-able for. Others haven't gotten that consideration, so why start now? The ArbCom are technically independent from Jimbo, and I don't see why he should intervene.
On 12/12/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
NSLE: I suggest you reconsider your position with this in mind - your name is almost certainly not NSLE or Chacor. I know my r/w name is not KillerChihuahua. The majority of Wikipedians and Wikipedia administrators do not contribute under their real names, and for good reason. The same logic which makes using a "handle" on Wikipedia in general a Good Idea also applies here. MONGO has been the target of massive trolling and harassment. It shows good sense to try to insulate oneself from becoming a target of the same people, and the Concerned Wikipedian is doing precisely that. I fail to see how that makes his or her concern any less valid. How precisely are you defining this as "trolling"? I see no trolling, and would appreciate it if you would share your logic with me and the others on this list, as apparently I have missed something.
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
Hear, hear. Good decision. Seriously, the second I saw "Concerned Wikipedian" as the person I knew that this would be something trollish
like
this. Seriously now, make the plea openly instead of hiding behind "Concerned Wikipedian".
On 12/12/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
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
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/12/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
NSLE: I suggest you reconsider your position with this in mind - your name is almost certainly not NSLE or Chacor. I know my r/w name is not KillerChihuahua. The majority of Wikipedians and Wikipedia administrators do not contribute under their real names, and for good reason. The same logic which makes using a "handle" on Wikipedia in general a Good Idea also applies here.
No, it's hardly the same thing. Editors on wikipedia are not anonymous, they are pseudonymous. They build up a track record of contributions which can be checked by anyone and they earn the respect of the community with their work. I may not know the real name of a pseudonymous editor, but that is a pretty meaningless bit of information in Wikipedia-land compared to an editor's history and reputation. While no one is expecting complaints to come notarized with a copy of your passport, it is not unreasonable to weigh a complaint on the basis of the complainer's willingness to stand behind it and put their WP "reputation on the line", as Jimbo put it.
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)
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
On Dec 12, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG 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.
He may immediately apply to be an administrator again; however, I think he has lost broad community support. The Arbitration Committee proposals are harsh, but there are serious problems with the way he acts. He responds poorly to harassment, and he is quite dismissive of his opponents with respect to content. "Nonsense" is frequently used.
Fred
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.
He may immediately apply to be an administrator again; however, I think he has lost broad community support. The Arbitration Committee proposals are harsh, but there are serious problems with the way he acts. He responds poorly to harassment, and he is quite dismissive of his opponents with respect to content. "Nonsense" is frequently used.
Fred
I don't think he's lost broad community support at all, if you look at his talk page and the talk pages on the ArbCom case, I think you'll see just the opposite. And when re-applying for RFA, you don't need to have lost broad support, just a small group (15% or so) of committed opposers will be enough to block it. Other high profile admins have gotten much longer leashes than this...
Brian -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.16/582 - Release Date: 12/11/2006 4:32 PM
Brian Haws wrote:
I don't think he's lost broad community support at all, if you look at his talk page and the talk pages on the ArbCom case, I think you'll see just the opposite.
And why, pray tell, would anyone who supports the decision dare go to his userpage and tell him, especially given his record of threatening blocks? Furthermore, why would any otherwise sane individual go and rub salt in the wound if he's that disturbed by the result of the RfAr by gloating about it? I'd like to think that most of the people who feel this is the proper outcome aren't interested in dancing around about it.
Any time someone leaves the project who's built a relationship with other editors, there's many pleas for them to reconsider. I don't necessarily take that as evidence of anything.
And when re-applying for RFA, you don't need to have lost broad support, just a small group (15% or so) of committed opposers will be enough to block it. Other high profile admins have gotten much longer leashes than this...
I think the evidence of lost support may, in fact, come from the results of the aborted arbcom election vote. Whether he acted correctly or ended up with the correct result (both of those are separate things) 99%, 75%, whatever of the time, I'm not sure that the trust of the general community exists anymore because of that percentage of being wrong.
Hell, I'm villified by a large portion of the community simply because I had an association with the group that's been trolling him. I've written an FA, created over 250 articles, and I have 10k edits to my name, but that doesn't change anything in a number of people's minds. As a whole, we're not defined by the 999 things we do right, but the 1 thing that people think we did wrong, and it doesn't matter who you are.
-Jeff
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:47:42 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
And why, pray tell, would anyone who supports the decision dare go to his userpage and tell him, especially given his record of threatening blocks?
Depends how you tell him, I'd say. And also on context - for example, you would be very unwise to bring up Encyclopaedia Dramatica on his user pages for obvious and perfectly good reasons.
Guy (JzG)
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:15:08 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
He may immediately apply to be an administrator again; however, I think he has lost broad community support. The Arbitration Committee proposals are harsh, but there are serious problems with the way he acts. He responds poorly to harassment, and he is quite dismissive of his opponents with respect to content. "Nonsense" is frequently used.
I don't disagree, but one must ask whether this is cause or effect. After many months of pretty relentless chipping away, MONGO has reached a point where he is isolated and beleaguered. I do not think that his behaviour under those circumstances is necessarily representative of his behaviour in more normal circumstances.
I'll tell you one thing: I won't be the one going after the truthers, because they are nasty - evil, underhand and quite definitely not above taking real-world action against those who try to undermine their abuse of Wikipedia to further their own ends. MONGO was braver (and had his real-world identity better hidden).
I am far from convinced that this is a good result for the project.
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 12, 2006, at 7:43 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I'll tell you one thing: I won't be the one going after the truthers, because they are nasty - evil, underhand and quite definitely not above taking real-world action against those who try to undermine their abuse of Wikipedia to further their own ends. MONGO was braver (and had his real-world identity better hidden).
I think that is the most important thing any of us can do here, insist on verifiable information from reliable sources.
Fred
On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I think that is the most important thing any of us can do here, insist on verifiable information from reliable sources.
Have you had many dealings with the 9/11 CTers?
On Dec 12, 2006, at 9:12 AM, geni wrote:
On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I think that is the most important thing any of us can do here, insist on verifiable information from reliable sources.
Have you had many dealings with the 9/11 CTers?
-- geni
No, no active editing regarding the matter. However, I have seen no reliable evidence supporting the conspiracy theories.
Fred
On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
No, no active editing regarding the matter. However, I have seen no reliable evidence supporting the conspiracy theories.
Fred
There isn't however there are professors supporting it and other than popular mechanics most of the debunkings don't get published.
On Dec 12, 2006, at 10:14 AM, geni wrote:
On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
No, no active editing regarding the matter. However, I have seen no reliable evidence supporting the conspiracy theories.
Fred
There isn't however there are professors supporting it and other than popular mechanics most of the debunkings don't get published.
Even in popular publishing there is some peer review.
Fred
On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
On Dec 12, 2006, at 10:14 AM, geni wrote:
On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
No, no active editing regarding the matter. However, I have seen no reliable evidence supporting the conspiracy theories.
Fred
There isn't however there are professors supporting it and other than popular mechanics most of the debunkings don't get published.
Even in popular publishing there is some peer review.
Fred
Wikipedia has never herd of [[popular publishing]] so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
[[Scholars for 9/11 Truth]] is a significant indication of the problem.
Rember it takes a lot less effort to make something up than it takes to debunk it.
On 12/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
[[Scholars for 9/11 Truth]] is a significant indication of the problem.
What is wrong with that page?
On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
[[Scholars for 9/11 Truth]] is a significant indication of the problem.
What is wrong with that page?
No idea I haven't read it isn't relvivant to my point. My point out there is that there are CTs produceing a large amount of citable material. Most the the active oponents (such as the author of "screw loose change") who are the ones who acutaly write down the point by point debunkings tend not to produce the same amount of citable material.
On 12/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
[[Scholars for 9/11 Truth]] is a significant indication of the
problem.
What is wrong with that page?
No idea I haven't read it isn't relvivant to my point. My point out there is that there are CTs produceing a large amount of citable material. Most the the active oponents (such as the author of "screw loose change") who are the ones who acutaly write down the point by point debunkings tend not to produce the same amount of citable material.
For any reasonable individual, it only takes one good thorough debunking to show what kooks these nuts are.
The fact that 5 tinfoil hats, even 5 tinfoil hats with cheap university degrees and too little psychological evaluation, spend all day writing about this still doesn't mean we should give them any credence.
"Eat dung. 10 million flies can't be wrong."
Parker
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
[[Scholars for 9/11 Truth]] is a significant indication of the
problem.
What is wrong with that page?
No idea I haven't read it isn't relvivant to my point. My point out there is that there are CTs produceing a large amount of citable material. Most the the active oponents (such as the author of "screw loose change") who are the ones who acutaly write down the point by point debunkings tend not to produce the same amount of citable material.
For any reasonable individual, it only takes one good thorough debunking to show what kooks these nuts are.
The fact that 5 tinfoil hats, even 5 tinfoil hats with cheap university degrees and too little psychological evaluation, spend all day writing about this still doesn't mean we should give them any credence.
No credence, perhaps, but space on Wikipedia? Sure.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:28:29 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
What is wrong with that page?
It gives far to much credence to their absurd theories.
Look at it this way: if I said to you that 300 people in the world believed that the moon was made of green cheese, and that the "moon made of rock" theory was a hoax perpetrated by the evil American government, and then created articles on Scholars for Green Cheese Truth, List of researchers supporting Moon Cheese Hypothesis, Alternate Explanations of Moon Construction, Evidence for Green Cheese Moon and so on and so on, then the whole walled garden would be gone by morning, and rightly so.
We have a *massive* collection of articles on these nutters and their absurd views, and most of them are "notable" solely for propounding absurd theories which violate Occam's Razor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collap...
and so on and so on. All classic conspiracy theory shit: We "know" that their explanation is bogus, they refuse to tell us the truth, what are they hiding, and variations on that theme. If we can't rebut something which is obviously bogus from credible sources, that indicates to me that maybe it should not be there at all. Aetherometry and pseudoscience all over again.
Meanwhile the rest of the world - to a fairly good approximation 100% of it - accepts that it was an act of terrorism, and that the buildings collapsed because nobody had thought to design against being hit square-on by a suicide bomber in an airliner fully loaded with fuel - a remarkable oversight given how often this had happened before.
We might disagree on the reasons behind the reasons, but as far as I can tell nobody with a full deck seriously believes that the WTC and Pentagon attacks were anything other than terrorism.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:28:29 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
What is wrong with that page?
It gives far to much credence to their absurd theories.
Look at it this way: if I said to you that 300 people in the world believed that the moon was made of green cheese, and that the "moon made of rock" theory was a hoax perpetrated by the evil American government, and then created articles on Scholars for Green Cheese Truth, List of researchers supporting Moon Cheese Hypothesis, Alternate Explanations of Moon Construction, Evidence for Green Cheese Moon and so on and so on, then the whole walled garden would be gone by morning, and rightly so.
We have a *massive* collection of articles on these nutters and their absurd views, and most of them are "notable" solely for propounding absurd theories which violate Occam's Razor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_Movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collap...
and so on and so on. All classic conspiracy theory shit: We "know" that their explanation is bogus, they refuse to tell us the truth, what are they hiding, and variations on that theme. If we can't rebut something which is obviously bogus from credible sources, that indicates to me that maybe it should not be there at all. Aetherometry and pseudoscience all over again.
Meanwhile the rest of the world - to a fairly good approximation 100% of it - accepts that it was an act of terrorism, and that the buildings collapsed because nobody had thought to design against being hit square-on by a suicide bomber in an airliner fully loaded with fuel - a remarkable oversight given how often this had happened before.
We might disagree on the reasons behind the reasons, but as far as I can tell nobody with a full deck seriously believes that the WTC and Pentagon attacks were anything other than terrorism.
There was a poll a couple of years ago which found that 40% of the population of New York City thought that there was something that had been covered up about the official 9/11 story, though support for the individual specific conspiracy theories was lower.
The links should be in the WTC disaster page talk page history.
That many people thinking there's something conspiratorial going on terrifies me, for one, but it is a real issue...
On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There was a poll a couple of years ago which found that 40% of the population of New York City thought that there was something that had been covered up about the official 9/11 story, though support for the individual specific conspiracy theories was lower.
The links should be in the WTC disaster page talk page history.
That many people thinking there's something conspiratorial going on terrifies me, for one, but it is a real issue...
It's not necessarily crazy to think that there may have been things covered up about 9/11; at the very least, evidence of screwups on the part of those whose job it was to try and catch people like this. Such a broadly worded question is different than specific conspiracy theories.
-Matt
On 12/12/06, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
It's not necessarily crazy to think that there may have been things covered up about 9/11; at the very least, evidence of screwups on the part of those whose job it was to try and catch people like this. Such a broadly worded question is different than specific conspiracy theories.
That's a fair criticism, the question was vague enough that it could be interpreted as "I think the government didn't completely level with us" or as "I think they're really hiding something seriously false", and it's never been adequately resolved as to what the spectrum really looks like.
The point was, that large parts of the population of the city of New York at least fell into the low end of that range at the time.
On 13/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We might disagree on the reasons behind the reasons, but as far as I can tell nobody with a full deck seriously believes that the WTC and Pentagon attacks were anything other than terrorism.
There was a poll a couple of years ago which found that 40% of the population of New York City thought that there was something that had been covered up about the official 9/11 story, though support for the individual specific conspiracy theories was lower.
Mmmm... but how many of those thought that what had been covered up was embezzlement in the rebuilding contracts, or another couple of intelligence screwups that never made it to the public record?
See, with something like... oh, like the Apollo claims, it's binary. You claim they landed, or you claim they didn't. One side conspiracy theorists, one side pretty much the official line. If you're on the not-hoax side, then it's exceptionally rare for you to quibble with the "official story" - or, if you do, you contextualise it as part of a historical discussion, "hey, this new document suggests we've had X wrong all along" and not as Something Smells Fishy Here, "hey, this new document exposes the official coverup of Y". Details don't desperately matter; indeed, hoax proponents with greatly differing reasons behind their beliefs seem to coexist happily.
Whereas, with this, the fundamental event is accepted as having happened by all sides (mostly, anyway, but I suspect those who deny it aren't usually in New York), so the theories become ones of explanation, which are by their nature much more complex and diffuse. You have a hundred points in the "official story", and each conspiracy theory contests or reinterprets some of those points whilst accepting others*.
Contesting any of those points by definition means you're disputing the official story, saying it concealed the truth (or just never found it), but not all of them immediately produce a "conspiracy theory"; it depends on the spin you put on it as much as anything. There are people who believe the fourth plane was shot down by the CIA to panic people - and people who believe it was shot down by a fighter, in a panic, and hushed up afterwards to avoid a lynching.
The two happily coexist in disagreeing with the government line - "fourth plane shot down!" - but wildly diverge on having a conspiracy theory - "CIA Terror Campaign!" vs. "Hijacked Plane Accidentally Downed". The open question is just how much of the 40% consists of each side... and that depends entirely on your original poll. Ho hum.
That many people thinking there's something conspiratorial going on terrifies me, for one, but it is a real issue...
It really is a pity they didn't ask for details, even try to categorise it. There's the germ of a really interesting oral history project there, come to think of it; wonder if anyone's doing that? "Memories of 9/11" won't be in short supply, but contemporary theories might...
On 12/12/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote: [...]
That many people thinking there's something conspiratorial going on terrifies me, for one, but it is a real issue...
It really is a pity they didn't ask for details, even try to categorise it. There's the germ of a really interesting oral history project there, come to think of it; wonder if anyone's doing that? "Memories of 9/11" won't be in short supply, but contemporary theories might...
Like many interesting possible sociological questions, this one is apparently remaining unanswered. A followup poll to find out the details and characterize the "official story distrust" and so on would be an excellent project, which as far as I know nobody took on...
I'm sure someone out there in academia has studied the sociology of populace's belief in conspiracy theories, but it's not a topic I've found or studied personally.
On 12/12/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
One side conspiracy theorists, one side pretty much the official line. If you're on the not-hoax side, then it's exceptionally rare for you to quibble with the "official story" - or, if you do, you contextualise it as part of a historical discussion, "hey, this new document suggests we've had X wrong all along" and not as Something Smells Fishy Here, "hey, this new document exposes the official coverup of Y". Details don't desperately matter; indeed, hoax proponents with greatly differing reasons behind their beliefs seem to coexist happily.
Conspiracy theories are a cottage industry--there's always a market for it. That's why it's disappointing not to see more support from ArbCom for Principal (4) "Reliable sources". WP:ATTFAQ finally has something about "obsolete sources" -- hallaluja.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#What_kinds_of_sources...
nobs
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:13:32 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There was a poll a couple of years ago which found that 40% of the population of New York City thought that there was something that had been covered up about the official 9/11 story, though support for the individual specific conspiracy theories was lower.
Depends who wrote the question, usually, doesn't it?
Guy (JzG)
When your best expert is a guy who sticks two cinderblocks up with a wrapping of chicken wire between them and lights a fire inside it to claim this is "proof" that the WTC girders couldn't have melted, it's all fun.
Why do we give credence to the tinfoil hat crowd? Anyone?
Parker
On 12/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
No, no active editing regarding the matter. However, I have seen no reliable evidence supporting the conspiracy theories.
Fred
There isn't however there are professors supporting it and other than popular mechanics most of the debunkings don't get published.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
On Dec 12, 2006, at 9:12 AM, geni wrote:
On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I think that is the most important thing any of us can do here, insist on verifiable information from reliable sources.
Have you had many dealings with the 9/11 CTers?
-- geni
No, no active editing regarding the matter. However, I have seen no reliable evidence supporting the conspiracy theories.
Fred
And yet you and the other Arbcom members found MONGO calling their nonsense "nonsense" uncivil. Um, right. Complete bollocks being pushed by a bunch of conspiracy theorists with no reliable sources cannot be called "nonsense". Heaven forfend.
-kc-
On Dec 12, 2006, at 12:07 PM, Puppy wrote:
And yet you and the other Arbcom members found MONGO calling their nonsense "nonsense" uncivil. Um, right. Complete bollocks being pushed by a bunch of conspiracy theorists with no reliable sources cannot be called "nonsense". Heaven forfend.
The problem is that many of the users pushing this stuff believe it. The discussion needs to address sources, not simply dismiss it outright.
Fred
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:20:59 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The problem is that many of the users pushing this stuff believe it. The discussion needs to address sources, not simply dismiss it outright.
Why? Dismissing it outright is what any rational human being does. Seriously. The 9/11 truthers are right up there on the grassy knoll with the "Elvis was abducted by aliens" crowd. Like all classic conspiracy theories it demands that we believe several implausible hypotheses while simultaneously dismissing the perfectly rational but prosaic alternatives.
This is not in any way inconsistent with assuming that their delusions are held in good faith; a person who tells us in all seriousness that Elvis was abducted by aliens should be told *really nicely* that we're not having any of it.
Nor does it mean we can't document it. There is no shortage of sources.
But it does mean that we should not devote megabytes of server space to detailing all the ludicrous details of their ludicrous delusions, and we should not allow the aggressively deluded to impact on the calm functioning of the project. But that's precisely what happened here, and keeps happening.
I am in debate with Ian Tresman on the Talk page of Wolf effect. He is a rational person with a minority view, that we can handle. We do not seem to be able to handle orchestrated campaigns in support of lunatic fringe views without it being incredibly destructive to the community. Or maybe we are really good at this, so we only notice the failures, but I don't see that.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:20:59 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The problem is that many of the users pushing this stuff believe it. The discussion needs to address sources, not simply dismiss it outright.
Why? Dismissing it outright is what any rational human being does. Seriously. The 9/11 truthers are right up there on the grassy knoll with the "Elvis was abducted by aliens" crowd. Like all classic conspiracy theories it demands that we believe several implausible hypotheses while simultaneously dismissing the perfectly rational but prosaic alternatives.
I've been down this road in arguments (with MONGO, strangely enough...). Here are my two cents.
One, to begin with, I absolutely agree that the engineering and physics and analytical skills of 9/11 conspiracists are at best sketchy and at worst flat-out self-delusional. The technical claims they make are easily demonstrably false. My arguments here do not spring from any sort of sympathy with what I percieve accuracy to be.
Two, there are large numbers of people who believe various aspects of 9/11 conspiracy theories. These are verifyable (polls have been done and published, by reputable mainstream polling organizations) and sourced.
Three, the conspiracists have voluminously documented their beliefs, in a verifyably sourceable manner.
Four, as a personal belief, attempts to supress conspiracists are ultimately self-destructive. Their ideas thrive on any public perception that "mainstream" scientists, politicians, whoever are seeking to deny the public the ability to read about the theory. I have hands-on experience with this problem going back to the Richard Hoagland "Face on Mars" problem. Ignoring it isn't great, and confronting it often leads to frustration, but supressing it boosts the popularity of the theory immensely.
I have fought this problem publically on the Internet on the Face on Mars claims. I have fought this problem on the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster, the TWA flight 800 disaster, the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, and the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I have the experience to talk to this point.
It is in my opinion notable and verifyable that there are conspiracy theories about 9/11. In my opinion, it's perfectly fine to document that fact in Wikipedia, and explain what those theories are.
It's also perfectly fine to segregate that off on topic specific pages with a brief mention in the event page that says "Various organizations believe different theories of these events, see [[Conspiracy theories about XYZ]]". Segregation is not suppression, and even the conspiracists eventually generally give in on those types of points.
I have not been hanging around the 9/11 related Wikipedia pages regularly for a while and I don't know the degree of shove we're getting from those conspiracists of late. I am sympathetic with "it takes too much effort to fight these kooks", but suppressing Wikipedia *coverage* of the issues is almost certainly the wrong approach to dealing with it.
In my currently ideal world, we'd do something like a policy which says that conspiracy theories MUST be segregated to a separate page, and simply apply normal warn-and-block to anyone who violates that and puts it on the main pages. Let them have their playpen at the conspiracy theory page, let the anti-conspiracy-theory people have a "Criticisms of conspiracy theories about X" page to argue the point on, and concentrate on squashing anyone who tries to pull that debate onto the main page. Give Arbcom the ability to decide if a particular issue or page / set of pages meet the conspiracy theory policy, and then let the normal admin anti-vandalism policy take hold.
It is in my opinion notable and verifyable that there are conspiracy theories about 9/11. In my opinion, it's perfectly fine to document that fact in Wikipedia, and explain what those theories are.
So long as we also explain that these "theories" are thoroughly debunked and that nobody should take them even remotely seriously, sure.
I have not been hanging around the 9/11 related Wikipedia pages
regularly for a while and I don't know the degree of shove we're getting from those conspiracists of late.
"Too Much."
I am sympathetic with "it
takes too much effort to fight these kooks", but suppressing Wikipedia *coverage* of the issues is almost certainly the wrong approach to dealing with it.
No. If you say we can document that the theories exist, sure, but our coverage shouldn't give them any sort of credibility.
In my currently ideal world, we'd do something like a policy which
says that conspiracy theories MUST be segregated to a separate page, and simply apply normal warn-and-block to anyone who violates that and puts it on the main pages. Let them have their playpen at the conspiracy theory page, let the anti-conspiracy-theory people have a "Criticisms of conspiracy theories about X" page to argue the point on, and concentrate on squashing anyone who tries to pull that debate onto the main page.
Problem: this gives the kook nutjob theories credibility.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
It is in my opinion notable and verifyable that there are conspiracy theories about 9/11. In my opinion, it's perfectly fine to document that fact in Wikipedia, and explain what those theories are.
So long as we also explain that these "theories" are thoroughly debunked and that nobody should take them even remotely seriously, sure.
I have not been hanging around the 9/11 related Wikipedia pages
regularly for a while and I don't know the degree of shove we're getting from those conspiracists of late.
"Too Much."
I am sympathetic with "it
takes too much effort to fight these kooks", but suppressing Wikipedia *coverage* of the issues is almost certainly the wrong approach to dealing with it.
No. If you say we can document that the theories exist, sure, but our coverage shouldn't give them any sort of credibility.
In my currently ideal world, we'd do something like a policy which
says that conspiracy theories MUST be segregated to a separate page, and simply apply normal warn-and-block to anyone who violates that and puts it on the main pages. Let them have their playpen at the conspiracy theory page, let the anti-conspiracy-theory people have a "Criticisms of conspiracy theories about X" page to argue the point on, and concentrate on squashing anyone who tries to pull that debate onto the main page.
Problem: this gives the kook nutjob theories credibility.
The real problem here is that overenthusiastic anti-conspiracists get into a vicious cycle where they try and suppress conspiracists, which encourages the conspiracists, which further angers the anti-conspiracists.
You are part of the problem. You can either keep battering your head on it until it stops hurting, or play Aikido with the problem. Guess which way minimizes long term stress by anti-conspiracists and public belief in conspiracy theories?
<snip>
The real problem here is that overenthusiastic anti-conspiracists get into a vicious cycle where they try and suppress conspiracists, which encourages the conspiracists, which further angers the anti-conspiracists.
You are part of the problem. You can either keep battering your head on it until it stops hurting, or play Aikido with the problem. Guess which way minimizes long term stress by anti-conspiracists and public belief in conspiracy theories?
No, you give them a page where the theory is listed, followed by "This is debunked/wrong BECAUSE:" and include the thorough debunking.
Parker
On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
The real problem here is that overenthusiastic anti-conspiracists get into a vicious cycle where they try and suppress conspiracists, which encourages the conspiracists, which further angers the anti-conspiracists.
Yah what do you do when a long term conspiracy theory is later debunked with reputable, verifiable information, and the then anti-conspiracists invent conspiracy theories to debunk the WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ATT former conspiracy theory. I can point to a real life situation.
nobs
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:03:54 -0700, "Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
Yah what do you do when a long term conspiracy theory is later debunked with reputable, verifiable information, and the then anti-conspiracists invent conspiracy theories to debunk the WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ATT former conspiracy theory. I can point to a real life situation.
I am all ears :-)
Guy (JzG)
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:03:54 -0700, "Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
Yah what do you do when a long term conspiracy theory is later debunked
with
reputable, verifiable information, and the then anti-conspiracists invent conspiracy theories to debunk the WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ATT former conspiracy theory. I can point to a real life situation.
I am all ears :-)
Guy (JzG)
"What if the American Government had disclosed the...conspiracy when it first learned of it? ...this did not happen.* *Ignorant armies clashed by night." Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
"defenders have loudly demanded the release of government documents on the case, only to deny the documents' significance once they are made public."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moynihan_Commission_on_Government_Secrecy#Cold_...
Expresses much the content of my dispute.
nobs
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:25:05 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It is in my opinion notable and verifyable that there are conspiracy theories about 9/11. In my opinion, it's perfectly fine to document that fact in Wikipedia, and explain what those theories are.
No problem with that.
It's also perfectly fine to segregate that off on topic specific pages with a brief mention in the event page that says "Various organizations believe different theories of these events, see [[Conspiracy theories about XYZ]]". Segregation is not suppression, and even the conspiracists eventually generally give in on those types of points.
Or indeed that.
In my currently ideal world, we'd do something like a policy which says that conspiracy theories MUST be segregated to a separate page, and simply apply normal warn-and-block to anyone who violates that and puts it on the main pages.
Yup, and the Pseudoscience ArbCom says pretty much that. But the articles on the conspiracy crap are (a) not theirs to play with, they should still be held to normal standards of neutrality and verifiability; and (b) should not be allowed to increase in number to a point well beyond what can be justified by an objective evaluation of the number and extent of the concepts being discussed.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:20:59 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The problem is that many of the users pushing this stuff believe it. The discussion needs to address sources, not simply dismiss it outright.
Why? Dismissing it outright is what any rational human being does.
NPOV says otherwise.
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:29:18 +1030, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Why? Dismissing it outright is what any rational human being does.
NPOV says otherwise.
Not so. We can document it, in terms which make it abundantly clear that *this is simply not true* even though some people are determined to believe it. NPOV would not, of course, allow the mad theory to creep into the main article.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:29:18 +1030, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Why? Dismissing it outright is what any rational human being does.
NPOV says otherwise.
Not so. We can document it, in terms which make it abundantly clear that *this is simply not true* even though some people are determined to believe it. NPOV would not, of course, allow the mad theory to creep into the main article.
Guy, I hope it's obvious that I respect you quite a lot, but as much as I agree with you that the ideas the conspiracists put forth are intellectual garbage, I really very badly think that this attitude ultimately encourages them and (much worse) public perceptions of them.
We can't make the lunacy go away; if we really want to minimize the encouragement we give them, let the light of neutral open review of their ideas expose them as garbage. People are much less likely to believe conspiracy theories when the whole situation is laid dispassionately out for them to see what kooks the kooks are. Anything else ends up encouraging them.
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:23:53 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We can't make the lunacy go away; if we really want to minimize the encouragement we give them, let the light of neutral open review of their ideas expose them as garbage. People are much less likely to believe conspiracy theories when the whole situation is laid dispassionately out for them to see what kooks the kooks are. Anything else ends up encouraging them.
Obviously I am putting it badly, because that is precisely what I am suggesting. Instead of the mass of what looks suspiciously like OR in the (long) article on controlled demolition hypothesis, for example, we should say that this is a hypothesis of Steve Jones, that it has been authoritatively rebutted by respected experts (including demolition experts), that his claims is such-and-such, and *leave it at that*. The problems start when we start allowing the parties to start arguing their case in Wikipedia. That is not what Wikipedia is for, is it?
The references list for the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collap... is informative. Where are the reliable sources for the hypothesis? Not for its having been advanced, but for the hypothesis itself? That is a recurrent problem. We can sometimes fix it, as with Time Cube, by showing that it's a meme not a valid theory, but we don't seem to be doing that with the 9/11 conspiracy meme.
Guy (JzG)
George Herbert wrote:
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:29:18 +1030, "Alphax wrote:
Why? Dismissing it outright is what any rational human being does.
NPOV says otherwise.
Not so. We can document it, in terms which make it abundantly clear that *this is simply not true* even though some people are determined to believe it. NPOV would not, of course, allow the mad theory to creep into the main article.
Guy, I hope it's obvious that I respect you quite a lot, but as much as I agree with you that the ideas the conspiracists put forth are intellectual garbage, I really very badly think that this attitude ultimately encourages them and (much worse) public perceptions of them.
We can't make the lunacy go away; if we really want to minimize the encouragement we give them, let the light of neutral open review of their ideas expose them as garbage. People are much less likely to believe conspiracy theories when the whole situation is laid dispassionately out for them to see what kooks the kooks are. Anything else ends up encouraging them.
When you start by calling the conspiricists kooks, and their theories garbage you have indeed succeeded in encouraging them. If an alternative non-mainstream theory has enough of a following to make it notable it needs to be dealt with fairly. That can involve diverting it from major articles by treating it there in links to relevent alternative theories. The introduction there can briefly describe what the theory says, and make a simple statement that the idea is controversial. We can then have a section where the theorists have a relatively free hand to develop their ideas without non-believers trying to tell them what they believe. A further section would give the critics an equally free reign. The article would not really reach conclusions, but it would be subject to referencing.
When dealing with such subjects it is important to allow for the possibility, however remote, that there may be an element of sense in the theory. We have no idea where that sense may lie or that it may ever be discovered at all. The burden of proof remains with the proponents, but a failure to carry that burden should not be read as a proof that the theory is wrong. It's perhaps in that leap of faith where those opponents who cannot bear loose ends go off the track.
Ec
On 12/13/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:29:18 +1030, "Alphax wrote:
NPOV says otherwise.
Not so. We can document it, in terms which make it abundantly clear that *this is simply not true* even though some people are determined to believe it. NPOV would not, of course, allow the mad theory to creep into the main article.
Guy, I hope it's obvious that I respect you quite a lot, but as much as I agree with you that the ideas the conspiracists put forth are intellectual garbage, I really very badly think that this attitude ultimately encourages them and (much worse) public perceptions of them.
We can't make the lunacy go away; if we really want to minimize the encouragement we give them, let the light of neutral open review of their ideas expose them as garbage. People are much less likely to believe conspiracy theories when the whole situation is laid dispassionately out for them to see what kooks the kooks are. Anything else ends up encouraging them.
When you start by calling the conspiricists kooks, and their theories garbage you have indeed succeeded in encouraging them.
Please note that the terms I used here on this list are NOT appropriate for in-wiki discussions or inclusion in pages. I know that and differentiate how I approach the conversations. Those are biased and loaded terms, and shut down any ability to rationally discuss the situation.
If an
alternative non-mainstream theory has enough of a following to make it notable it needs to be dealt with fairly. That can involve diverting it from major articles by treating it there in links to relevent alternative theories. The introduction there can briefly describe what the theory says, and make a simple statement that the idea is controversial. We can then have a section where the theorists have a relatively free hand to develop their ideas without non-believers trying to tell them what they believe. A further section would give the critics an equally free reign. The article would not really reach conclusions, but it would be subject to referencing.
Agreed.
When dealing with such subjects it is important to allow for the
possibility, however remote, that there may be an element of sense in the theory. We have no idea where that sense may lie or that it may ever be discovered at all. The burden of proof remains with the proponents, but a failure to carry that burden should not be read as a proof that the theory is wrong. It's perhaps in that leap of faith where those opponents who cannot bear loose ends go off the track.
Agreed.
George Herbert wrote:
On 12/13/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:29:18 +1030, "Alphax wrote:
NPOV says otherwise.
Not so. We can document it, in terms which make it abundantly clear that *this is simply not true* even though some people are determined to believe it. NPOV would not, of course, allow the mad theory to creep into the main article.
Guy, I hope it's obvious that I respect you quite a lot, but as much as I agree with you that the ideas the conspiracists put forth are intellectual garbage, I really very badly think that this attitude ultimately encourages them and (much worse) public perceptions of them.
We can't make the lunacy go away; if we really want to minimize the encouragement we give them, let the light of neutral open review of their ideas expose them as garbage. People are much less likely to believe conspiracy theories when the whole situation is laid dispassionately out for them to see what kooks the kooks are. Anything else ends up encouraging them.
When you start by calling the conspiricists kooks, and their theories garbage you have indeed succeeded in encouraging them.
Please note that the terms I used here on this list are NOT appropriate for in-wiki discussions or inclusion in pages. I know that and differentiate how I approach the conversations. Those are biased and loaded terms, and shut down any ability to rationally discuss the situation.
Acknowledged.
Ec
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:28:14 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
We can then have a section where the theorists have a relatively free hand to develop their ideas without non-believers trying to tell them what they believe. A further section would give the critics an equally free reign. The article would not really reach conclusions, but it would be subject to referencing.
Sorry, but this is a recipe for he-said-she-said and original research. Sometimes it works, more often you get articles like Aetherometry where we are in the vanguard of debunking something that nobody else takes seriously enough to give time to.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
We can then have a section where the theorists have a relatively free hand to develop their ideas without non-believers trying to tell them what they believe. A further section would give the critics an equally free reign. The article would not really reach conclusions, but it would be subject to referencing.
Sorry, but this is a recipe for he-said-she-said and original research. Sometimes it works, more often you get articles like Aetherometry where we are in the vanguard of debunking something that nobody else takes seriously enough to give time to.
Being subject to referencing deals with the original research rule. Both sides of the argument have to do it. There is certainly a strong element of he-said-she-said, but I wouldn't worry about that. That can be constrained by keeping both sides from carrying on endlessly.
It is not the function of Wikipedia to be either promoting or debunking theories. Doing either of these would be jumping on one side's POV bandwagon. I tried to look up aetherometry just to see what it is but we currently do not have an article about it.
Ec
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:48:36 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There is certainly a strong element of he-said-she-said, but I wouldn't worry about that. That can be constrained by keeping both sides from carrying on endlessly.
You have a mechanism for this? In my experience both sides will rush to Wikipedia every time their preferred expert drops some new pearl of wisdom, in an attempt to make their side the more compelling overall within the argument.
It is not the function of Wikipedia to be either promoting or debunking theories. Doing either of these would be jumping on one side's POV bandwagon. I tried to look up aetherometry just to see what it is but we currently do not have an article about it.
Yes, exactly that. We deleted Aetherometry after endless arguments because the theory itself was unpublished and lacked any independent discussion.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:48:36 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There is certainly a strong element of he-said-she-said, but I wouldn't worry about that. That can be constrained by keeping both sides from carrying on endlessly.
You have a mechanism for this? In my experience both sides will rush to Wikipedia every time their preferred expert drops some new pearl of wisdom, in an attempt to make their side the more compelling overall within the argument.
Requiring references is still key. Be that as it may, long and convoluted argments about such topics only make the average reader's eyes glaze over. Sometimes too a detailed debunking may not even be needed. Such an approach tends to give them ammunation to engage in even more outrageous theorizing. Sometimes the best thing that you can say in opposition is that we have been unable to find any study of the subject in mainstream scientific publications.- period.
In reality, most scientists don't have the time to waste on researching such subjects. Admitting openly and honestly that this is the case is so much more believable than speculating about why the practice is so much nonsense, thereby looking just as foolish as the proponents. It seems that debunkers have this fear that whenever a screwball theory goes unchallenged the masses will immediately see it as true. Sometimes the most effective technique for debunking is a stone wall.
It is not the function of Wikipedia to be either promoting or debunking theories. Doing either of these would be jumping on one side's POV bandwagon. I tried to look up aetherometry just to see what it is but we currently do not have an article about it.
Yes, exactly that. We deleted Aetherometry after endless arguments because the theory itself was unpublished and lacked any independent discussion.
While I have no intention to spend time researching this subject, the term at least has enterred the vocabulary, and some individual is probably credited with its "discovery". Others are also likely to run across the term, and wonder what the hell it is. Such a topic may never result in more than a stub, and that's fine. The study of these dead ends of science is an important part of the history of science.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:55:33 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sometimes too a detailed debunking may not even be needed. Such an approach tends to give them ammunation to engage in even more outrageous theorizing. Sometimes the best thing that you can say in opposition is that we have been unable to find any study of the subject in mainstream scientific publications.- period.
Exactly so. And the same should really apply to those parts of the theory which have not been published outside of the walled garden of its proponents.
Which gives you a short article saying that this theory is propounded by so-and-so but lacks the legitimacy of publication or discussion in any peer-reviewed sources.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Sometimes too a detailed debunking may not even be needed. Such an approach tends to give them ammunation to engage in even more outrageous theorizing. Sometimes the best thing that you can say in opposition is that we have been unable to find any study of the subject in mainstream scientific publications.- period.
Exactly so. And the same should really apply to those parts of the theory which have not been published outside of the walled garden of its proponents.
Which gives you a short article saying that this theory is propounded by so-and-so but lacks the legitimacy of publication or discussion in any peer-reviewed sources.
Gee! We almost agree!
Perhaps we don't even need to get into the "parts of the theory". If their primary theory makes no sense at all it follows that what is derived from that also makes no sense.
Ec
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:18:55 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Gee! We almost agree!
Damn! Must re-read looking for points of disagreement... ;-)
Perhaps we don't even need to get into the "parts of the theory". If their primary theory makes no sense at all it follows that what is derived from that also makes no sense.
Oh yes, I'm all for that.
So, now we come back to the controlled demolition hypothesis for the WTC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collap...
How should we handle that, do you think? My strong preference here would be to keep it short and to the point: a theory advanced by Steve Jones, unsupported by any peer-reviewed evidence, not accepted by the mainstream, beloved of the conspiracy theorists. We might justifiably link to the very detailed rebuttal of his hypothesis by Blanchard, and possibly even discuss it as having offered a prosaic explanation for the questions raised by Jones, if we can find a reliable source that identifies it as doing so. I can't find any reliable sources attesting to the accuracy or validity of the controlled demolition hypothesis, and that is something which indicates that we should employ great care in documenting it.
Seems to me that we should start by removing: * Multiple news reports of what Steve Jones said (it's not in dispute) * YouTube videos of the collapse (OR, not sources, copyright issues) * All links to 9/11 conspiracy websites masquerading as sources
Right now what I see in that article is the two sides duking it out and in the process elevating the hypothesis far beyond any objectively provable merit it might have. Again, this hypothesis has never, as far as I can tell, been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.
A good quote from Sen. Moynihan: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts. So let's get the opinion out and leave the facts :-)
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:18:55 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Gee! We almost agree!
Damn! Must re-read looking for points of disagreement... ;-)
Perhaps we don't even need to get into the "parts of the theory". If their primary theory makes no sense at all it follows that what is derived from that also makes no sense.
Oh yes, I'm all for that.
So, now we come back to the controlled demolition hypothesis for the WTC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collap...
How should we handle that, do you think? My strong preference here would be to keep it short and to the point: a theory advanced by Steve Jones, unsupported by any peer-reviewed evidence, not accepted by the mainstream, beloved of the conspiracy theorists. We might justifiably link to the very detailed rebuttal of his hypothesis by Blanchard, and possibly even discuss it as having offered a prosaic explanation for the questions raised by Jones, if we can find a reliable source that identifies it as doing so. I can't find any reliable sources attesting to the accuracy or validity of the controlled demolition hypothesis, and that is something which indicates that we should employ great care in documenting it.
Seems to me that we should start by removing:
- Multiple news reports of what Steve Jones said (it's not in dispute)
- YouTube videos of the collapse (OR, not sources, copyright issues)
- All links to 9/11 conspiracy websites masquerading as sources
Right now what I see in that article is the two sides duking it out and in the process elevating the hypothesis far beyond any objectively provable merit it might have. Again, this hypothesis has never, as far as I can tell, been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.
I just read through the article. It's not easy going. I understand that such a prose style is typical in a much disputed article.
I agree with keeping it short. The "Overview" seems particularly prone to being unreadable. It could probably be scrapped if everything said there is included elsewhere in the article. The "History" section should probably be limited to describing where this theory cane from, and probably does not need to be as long as it is.
The head part of the "Claims" section seems to be relatively clear. The sections about the fire theory and molten metal seem to be talking about a completely different theory. At least the other subsections of Claims seem to have some relevance.
As for 7WTC my own theory would be to favour something like what happened at the [[Hope Slide]] where the collapse of the mountain into a valley rode up on the opposite side of the valley to bring down a section of the mountain there.
If I wanted to take the time to work on it I'm sure that I could find much more to trim.
Ec
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:07:30 -0500, Puppy puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
And yet you and the other Arbcom members found MONGO calling their nonsense "nonsense" uncivil. Um, right. Complete bollocks being pushed by a bunch of conspiracy theorists with no reliable sources cannot be called "nonsense". Heaven forfend.
Quite. I'd say a lot of it passed the duck test.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net 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.
I'm not unsympathetic, given that I've spend much of my Wikitime trying to clean up articles related to the JFK assassination, which as we all know is the mothership of conspiracy. But many in Mongo's corner are just as bad if not worse than the 9/11 truth crowd, and so it looks more like a troll gang fight than a bunch of trolls attacking a bunch of saintly editors.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:24:39 -0500, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
many in Mongo's corner are just as bad if not worse than the 9/11 truth crowd, and so it looks more like a troll gang fight than a bunch of trolls attacking a bunch of saintly editors.
I don't think either side comes out of these wars smelling of roses.
It is true, though, that Wikipedia is now almost certainly the single most attractive venue for pushers of lunatic theories, and the amount of this crap is only going to increase. Look at the months we spent arguing on whether Steve Jones could be called a conspiracy theorist. Sometimes there is no sanity clause...
This is not an "ArbCom is broken" kind of thing, I suspect that ArbCom have not enjoyed desysopping MONGO any more than he has enjoyed being the Aunt Sally for every fuckwit in Christendom these last six months, but *something* is broken, and it's most likely the internal support and balance mechanism for admins.
I was running for ArbCom, but Cryptic pointed out that I am going down this path myself - I think "deals poorly with trolls" was his comment - and he's absolutely right, so I withdrew. Anyone *can* deal with trolls, but doing that, and little else, albeit by one's own choice, for months at a time, and then having it intrude on one's private life as happened to MONGO - that is not a good place to be. The MONGO situation should never have got to this point. Never. The only problem is, the Truthers and other such lowlifes thrive on drama and the oxygen of publicity. It is almost impossible to quietly get rid of them because they won't go quietly, and as soon as our backs are turned they are back because they need us every bit as much as we don't need them. They are malicious and vile, and one cannot blame anybody who chooses to give them a wide berth. Having decided to do so, we need to decide how we are going to help the brave few who defend the breach.
It seems to me that a fairly small proportion of admins do the lion's share of the work defending the project against lunatic fringes. That work can be utterly destructive to the individual's ability to maintain perspective. I wish I had some idea how to fix it. We are well set up for dealing with cluelessness and brainless vandalism, but we are much less sure I think of how to deal with determined, well-organised and intelligent groups determined to use the project for their own ends. And when they are also both malicious and resourceful, we have a real problem.
Guy (JzG)
I didn't write the email, but I strongly second and support the statements made here.
It is clear the concerned individual is making an open request using anonymity in order to protect him or her self. As most of Wikipedia is anonymous, as usual should we not consider the content and not the author? The content is valid.
-KillerChihuahua
Jimmy Wales wrote:
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
Concerned Wikipedian wrote:
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.
As someone who came extremely close to throwing in the towel because of Mongo's continued abuses and incivility, at some point something has to give. He went through some serious shit with the ED stuff, and ArbCom gave him a pass for going overboard. When he continues to do it, he should keep getting the free pass?
I certainly hope not.
I can only think of maybe two administrators at this point who have a poorer record in similar regards to Mongo, and two others that were worse resigned not too long ago. This needed to happen a while ago, and I was surprised when I saw the proposed decisions this week, because I've been building my own separate case for when I had some significant time to work on it.
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.
Don't believe the hype. Mongo does great things for NPOV and for defending some terrible POV pushers at the 9/11 articles. But that doesn't excuse him.
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
<snip>
Mongo's continued abuses and incivility
<snip>
Don't believe the hype. Mongo does great things for NPOV and for defending some terrible POV pushers at the 9/11 articles. But that doesn't excuse him.
-Jeff
Is desysopping the answer? Is it appropriate to desysop, generally reserved for abuses of /admin/ functions, for incivility, which is an /editor/ action, and usually is addressed with either a caution or probation?
Guy suggests a month long enforced break, which seems reasonable to me. -kc-
Is desysopping the answer? Is it appropriate to desysop, generally reserved for abuses of /admin/ functions, for incivility, which is an /editor/ action, and usually is addressed with either a caution or probation?
Incivility is often used as a reason to oppose an RfA, so it is a perfectly good reason for desysoping. Admins should be held to the same standards as admin candidates (maybe with a few allowances to account for the fact that it's almost impossible to be a good admin without occasionally annoying a few people, but that just increases the amount of incivility we would allow, it doesn't make all incivility acceptable).
To tag this on to my point about something de-sysoppable for: Look at it this way. Someone committing these actions applying for admin would be flatly rejected. I'd say that's grounds enough.
On 12/12/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
<snip> > Mongo's continued abuses and incivility <snip> > Don't believe the hype. Mongo does great things for NPOV and for > defending some terrible POV pushers at the 9/11 articles. But that > doesn't excuse him. > > -Jeff > Is desysopping the answer? Is it appropriate to desysop, generally reserved for abuses of /admin/ functions, for incivility, which is an /editor/ action, and usually is addressed with either a caution or probation?
Guy suggests a month long enforced break, which seems reasonable to me. -kc-
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Puppy wrote:
Is desysopping the answer? Is it appropriate to desysop, generally reserved for abuses of /admin/ functions, for incivility, which is an /editor/ action, and usually is addressed with either a caution or probation?
If it were one singular time, with one singular person? No, it wouldn't be the answer. If it was a series of abuses stemming back over six months, even if you eliminate the ED bullshit? Absolutely.
He effectively got his probation with the "No action is taken for the excessive zeal" thing. How many more probations does he need? If regular users can't get some sort of recourse through the proper channels, what the hell else is supposed to go on?
Guy suggests a month long enforced break, which seems reasonable to me.
Truly, that suggestion (not enforced) should have come after the ED thing, so he could step back a little bit and perhaps not continue to act out and assume everyone who disagrees with him is either a) a troll, b) harassing him, or c) supporting those who troll or harass him. Have you read the evidence in the case at all?
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Puppy wrote:
Is desysopping the answer? Is it appropriate to desysop, generally reserved for abuses of /admin/ functions, for incivility, which is an /editor/ action, and usually is addressed with either a caution or probation?
If it were one singular time, with one singular person? No, it wouldn't be the answer. If it was a series of abuses stemming back over six months, even if you eliminate the ED bullshit? Absolutely.
He effectively got his probation with the "No action is taken for the excessive zeal" thing. How many more probations does he need? If regular users can't get some sort of recourse through the proper channels, what the hell else is supposed to go on?
Guy suggests a month long enforced break, which seems reasonable to me.
Truly, that suggestion (not enforced) should have come after the ED thing, so he could step back a little bit and perhaps not continue to act out and assume everyone who disagrees with him is either a) a troll, b) harassing him, or c) supporting those who troll or harass him. Have you read the evidence in the case at all?
-Jeff
Yes, I have. The month long break did /not/ come after the ED thing; "what might have been" is not something we can work with. -kc-
On 12/12/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Is desysopping the answer? Is it appropriate to desysop, generally reserved for abuses of /admin/ functions, for incivility, which is an /editor/ action, and usually is addressed with either a caution or probation?
Guy suggests a month long enforced break, which seems reasonable to me.
I do think it's reasonable and expected to hold admins to a higher civility standard. This used to be consensus, has that changed? I hope not...
But in any case, the arbcom found that MONGO did abuse his admin functions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Pro...
I'm completely ignorant to the case other than what I've read on the page, but it would seem to me that some of the support emails here are operating in an even greater information vacuum.
After reviewing the material there, I really do believe we're doing MONGO a favor although it might be too late in any case... There have been many "Sole defenders of the Wiki" who completely burned out when they realized that the community, in fact, would not let them get away with anything, such as RickK.
On 12/13/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I'm completely ignorant to the case other than what I've read on the page, but it would seem to me that some of the support emails here are operating in an even greater information vacuum.
Indeed. The case seems to revolve around two admins misusing (or threatening to misuse) their tools in edit wars on a number of occasions. The likely outcome of the case will be that both will be desysopped. Unless I'm missing something, these remedies like appropriate and fairly obvious responses.
After reviewing the material there, I really do believe we're doing MONGO a favor although it might be too late in any case... There have been many "Sole defenders of the Wiki" who completely burned out when they realized that the community, in fact, would not let them get away with anything, such as RickK.
I tend to agree.
Okay, I'll weigh in on this. It took me three hours to look through everything, but what the hey. I left Wikipedia because none of you would do jack shit about real abusive administrators and real abusive POV-pushing groups who twist and stretch policy in order to hurt others, but even I think this is over the top.
Did MONGO misuse his admin tools? I have to say yes. Did he do so in a way that was necessarily malicious? I don't necessarily think so. What I think MONGO screwed up on is in relation to conflict of interest.
I'd be much happier if Arbcom had given MONGO some simple terms - say, a requirement that he not use his admin powers in relation to any page he has edited in a certain time frame.
But then again, yesterday I saw a normal user try to report another editor for trolling (that is to say, making false edit summaries during an edit conflict) and immediately get piled upon by the other editor's friends, and now that they have been blocked for more than 3 days and had their talkpage locked by admins who turned out to be the other editor's friends, because when the admin friends started in their harassment campaign, the user flailed about in a fashion very similar to how MONGO did.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Is desysopping the answer? Is it appropriate to desysop, generally reserved for abuses of /admin/ functions, for incivility, which is an /editor/ action, and usually is addressed with either a caution or probation?
Guy suggests a month long enforced break, which seems reasonable to me.
I do think it's reasonable and expected to hold admins to a higher civility standard. This used to be consensus, has that changed? I hope not...
But in any case, the arbcom found that MONGO did abuse his admin functions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Pro...
I'm completely ignorant to the case other than what I've read on the page, but it would seem to me that some of the support emails here are operating in an even greater information vacuum.
After reviewing the material there, I really do believe we're doing MONGO a favor although it might be too late in any case... There have been many "Sole defenders of the Wiki" who completely burned out when they realized that the community, in fact, would not let them get away with anything, such as RickK. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/12/06, Concerned Wikipedian concernedwikipedian@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
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.
[snip]
There are many factual errors in Wikipedia... There are many copyright violations at any moment.
The existence of many examples of a wrong is not cause to refuse to correct any of them.
Your own complaint admits that MONGO has been suffering with some serious trouble.
We need to stop regarding adminship as a pure reward and its removal as some terrible punishment. We should thank MONGO for his efforts, and look forward to the day when he can again be claimed as an example for the community.
Deadminship is a break which many should welcome. We should offer it more freely.
On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
We need to stop regarding adminship as a pure reward and its removal as some terrible punishment. We should thank MONGO for his efforts, and look forward to the day when he can again be claimed as an example for the community.
Entirely the reasoning behind my support for this. Do I think MONGO is a bad person? No. Do I think that the stress and harassment he's been subjected to excuses his behaviour? Absolutely.
Do I think it likely that that stress and harassment will push him to make further errors with his admin tools? I do. It is for that reason that I am supporting his de-adminship. If he returns with a clear head and a tolerable level of stress, I will enthusiastically support his re-adminship in the future.
Arguments that we've given people a pass in similar circumstances before ignores the fact that, many times, that pass has returned to bite us. Arbcom is not held to precedent for exactly that reason.
-Matt
Interested parties may wish to read this summary of the findings of fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_El...
Guy (JzG)
I have reviewed Radiant!'s analysis of the findings. It independently corroborates much of Durin's analysis posted to the talkpage of /Proposed Decision today. I have also posted my own thoughts to the talkpage of the /Proposed Decision.
Newyorkbrad
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Interested parties may wish to read this summary of the findings of fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_El...
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
On 12/12/06, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I have reviewed Radiant!'s analysis of the findings. It independently corroborates much of Durin's analysis posted to the talkpage of /Proposed Decision today. I have also posted my own thoughts to the talkpage of the /Proposed Decision.
Both you and Radiant! limited your comments solely to the few citations in the arbcom finding and ignored the evidence page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evi...) which has dozens of examples.
I'll be the first to agree that the actual arbitration finding texts are often poorly written and illconsidered, but that by no means causes the outcome of the decision to be invalid. You must consider the underlying evidence, just as the arbcom did before you can fairly comment.
On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I'll be the first to agree that the actual arbitration finding texts are often poorly written and illconsidered, but that by no means causes the outcome of the decision to be invalid. You must consider the underlying evidence, just as the arbcom did before you can fairly comment.
This is definitely the case, and thank you for bringing that up. We have sometimes been poor at 'showing our working' - there is sometimes (often?) a gap between the stated findings and the remedies. The arbitrators will easily take issue with findings or remedies that are clearly not agreed upon, but sometimes it does not come quickly to mind that B does not necessarily follow from A.
This is not, often, because we are off conspiring in some back room deciding what to do, but simply because as Gregory says we are reaching our conclusions about what should be done by reading directly from the evidence, and possibly further research on our own, not from only reading the findings.
We are also not some mechanical process of input the policy violations here, apply some math, out come the remedies there. In this, I feel, we are attempting to follow Jimbo's way of running things pre-Arbcom - that the final arbiter of things should not be a mechanical application of rules but a human process of evaluating the thing as a whole and trying to do the best thing for the project. We are always evaluating things in the light of someone's overall contribution and behaviour, not just the behaviour brought to light in a specific case.
Some admins seem to want Arbcom decisions to be purely a mechanical application of rules, purely based on the evidence set forth, and with a very laid down set of penalties for various violations of the rules. I do not, personally, agree with that.
-Matt
On 12/12/06, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
We are always evaluating things in the light of someone's overall contribution and behaviour
Someone's overall contributions and behavior, or *what is said *about a persons overall contributions and behavior?
nobs
On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I have reviewed Radiant!'s analysis of the findings. It independently corroborates much of Durin's analysis posted to the talkpage of
/Proposed
Decision today. I have also posted my own thoughts to the talkpage of the /Proposed Decision.
Both you and Radiant! limited your comments solely to the few citations in the arbcom finding and ignored the evidence page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evi... ) which has dozens of examples.
Without opining on the appropriateness of the MONGO case - about which I know too little - I do want to comment on this.
If the findings of fact do not support the decision then they should change. The evidence page is for the different parties to present their view, the findings should then identify that evidence which demonstrates the question at issue, the principles should be stated, and then the decision should apply the principles to the findings. It is wasteful and wrong to have to completely review the evidence as well as the findings. Anyone can propose findings of fact - they just need to be endorsed by the arbcom - if there are aggregious examples they should be in the findings not buried on the evidence page.
My suspicion is that if the alleged evidence is not in the findings because there is some dispute as to the meaning or intepretation of that evidence. Thus they were not proposed as a finding since they would likely not gain the requisite support from members of the arbcom. Which is how it should be.
"Our love may not always be reciprocated, or even appreciated, but love is never wasted" - Neal A Maxwell-
On Dec 13, 2006, at 6:59 AM, Jim wrote:
Without opining on the appropriateness of the MONGO case - about which I know too little - I do want to comment on this.
If the findings of fact do not support the decision then they should change. The evidence page is for the different parties to present their view, the findings should then identify that evidence which demonstrates the question at issue, the principles should be stated, and then the decision should apply the principles to the findings. It is wasteful and wrong to have to completely review the evidence as well as the findings. Anyone can propose findings of fact - they just need to be endorsed by the arbcom - if there are aggregious examples they should be in the findings not buried on the evidence page.
My suspicion is that if the alleged evidence is not in the findings because there is some dispute as to the meaning or intepretation of that evidence. Thus they were not proposed as a finding since they would likely not gain the requisite support from members of the arbcom. Which is how it should be.
I think the more likely cause is that I did not explain myself well enough in making the findings of fact, giving appropriate example, etc.
Fred
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Interested parties may wish to read this summary of the findings of fact:
Well, now I have two reasons to oppose Radiant.
-Jeff
For all interested, this case is now 6-1 to close, which will be done soon.
I have already expressed my extraordinary pleasure with the conduct and precedents established by this decision on the Talk page, as have many other well-respected administrators and Wikipedians. There has been no substantive change in response to these concerns by the Arbitration Committee.
Warmest regards, bbatsell
On Dec 16, 2006, at 12:14 PM, bbatsell wrote:
For all interested, this case is now 6-1 to close, which will be done soon.
I have already expressed my extraordinary pleasure with the conduct and precedents established by this decision on the Talk page, as have many other well-respected administrators and Wikipedians. There has been no substantive change in response to these concerns by the Arbitration Committee.
Warmest regards, bbatsell
The drama needed to end. Thank you all for your comments and the opportunity to re-examine the matter. Please support MONGO when and if he decides to try to do some more hard work for us.
Fred
On 12/16/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The drama needed to end. Thank you all for your comments and the opportunity to re-examine the matter. Please support MONGO when and if he decides to try to do some more hard work for us.
Fred
the workers at Kaesong Industrial park
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaesong_Industrial_Region
make more and probably get treated better than the hard working volunteers.
nobs
bbatsell wrote:
There has been no substantive change in response to these concerns by the Arbitration Committee.
Actually, the fact that all the arbitrators were voting unanimously until the shitstorm at the talk page, and then proceeded to not closefor a number of days, shows a remarkable change in typical response to the concerns of the community who stopped by the page. If they could have been clearer regarding what specific evidence they used to come to the conclusion, perhaps that's something they should address in the future.
We're not privy to a lot of the discussion they have on their mailing list, but I have no doubts in my mind that they discussed this quite a bit. Thus the extra motions, thus the extra time for deliberation. Even if the result did not come in a way I favored, I wouldn't be able to criticize them for lack of consideration, and I don't think that's fair.
If anything, I hope the 5 new folks who'll come on board show the same care.
-Jeff
On Dec 16, 2006, at 5:20 PM, Jeff Raymond wrote:
bbatsell wrote:
There has been no substantive change in response to these concerns by the Arbitration Committee.
Actually, the fact that all the arbitrators were voting unanimously until the shitstorm at the talk page, and then proceeded to not closefor a number of days, shows a remarkable change in typical response to the concerns of the community who stopped by the page. If they could have been clearer regarding what specific evidence they used to come to the conclusion, perhaps that's something they should address in the future.
We're not privy to a lot of the discussion they have on their mailing list, but I have no doubts in my mind that they discussed this quite a bit. Thus the extra motions, thus the extra time for deliberation. Even if the result did not come in a way I favored, I wouldn't be able to criticize them for lack of consideration, and I don't think that's fair.
If anything, I hope the 5 new folks who'll come on board show the same care.
I certainly didn't intend to intimate that there wasn't substantive discussion amongst ArbCom members (as I have noted on the talk page). My problem is with the lack of communication with and explanation to the general public. The findings of fact do not support the proposed remedies, and no communication or substantive changes have been made in response to that.
My problem is with the lack of communication with and explanation to the general public. The findings of fact do not support the proposed remedies, and no communication or substantive changes have been made in response to that.
Wow. The findings of fact very very strongly support the proposed remedies. AND the Arbcom has very carefully and extensively discussed the concerns about this that some members of the community have raised.
--Jimbo
On Dec 16, 2006, at 11:24 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
My problem is with the lack of communication with and explanation to the general public. The findings of fact do not support the proposed remedies, and no communication or substantive changes have been made in response to that.
Wow. The findings of fact very very strongly support the proposed remedies. AND the Arbcom has very carefully and extensively discussed the concerns about this that some members of the community have raised.
Jimbo, you just so happened to trim the part of my e-mail where I fully acknowledged your third sentence. Not sure why you felt it was necessary to trim and then tell me something I already knew and stated, other than to try to make me look even sillier than I already do by being called out by [[WP:JIMBO]].
I'd like to point you to the analysis of the findings of fact provided for MONGO's desysopping done by Radiant [1] (also, see Renesis [2], Durin [3], and Newyorkbrad [4]). If you feel that the findings of fact match up with the proposed remedy of desysopping, then I think we need to have some policy clarification for several of the points raised by Radiant in particular. If ArbCom really feels that the findings of fact are rock solid, then I think they need to explain why and respond publicly to the numerous complaints raised. As I've said numerous times, I'm aware of and fully appreciate the amount of private discussion that must have gone into this decision.
Again, all I am asking for is communication. After this thread in enwiki, plus the talk page at RfAr, I have no idea what half of this decision means for me as an administrator. I don't know when I can protect or even unprotect an article anymore. I really don't think communication is too much to ask for, and I don't understand why I'm being publicly derided by Jimmy Wales for asking for it.
Warmest regards, bbatsell
P.S. I hope the links come through, but if they do not, they are below: [1] http://tinyurl.com/wrkrq [2] http://tinyurl.com/yy5d5b [3] http://tinyurl.com/y94x2k [4] http://tinyurl.com/yxyuzz
And for what it's worth now, the case has been closed.
Quoting below.
--NSLE
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is desysopped. Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for 24 hours, or as much as a week for repeat offenses. Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_banshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans .
For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Srikeit08:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Just noting that one line has been removed as an error by Srikeit, in case anyone is too lazy to check wiki.
On 17/12/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
And for what it's worth now, the case has been closed.
Quoting below.
--NSLE
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is desysopped. Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_banshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Srikeit08:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
On 16/12/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
We're not privy to a lot of the discussion they have on their mailing list, but I have no doubts in my mind that they discussed this quite a bit. Thus the extra motions, thus the extra time for deliberation. Even if the result did not come in a way I favored, I wouldn't be able to criticize them for lack of consideration, and I don't think that's fair.
I'm not on the AC but I am on the list (and am a listadmin), and I don't think I'm giving anything away by confirming that the matter has been discussed afresh at great length. Not everyone agrees by a long shot, but this is a really hard one and there's no way everyone would be happy with any result. But then, that's why being on the AC is hard work.
If anything, I hope the 5 new folks who'll come on board show the same care.
What tends to happen is a month or two of enthusiasm then burnout, from dealing with wholesale quantities of the most corrosive industrial-strength stupid to be found in wikidom. This is a tricky one to try to work past ...
- d.