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