[WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

[NSLE (Wikipedia)]

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 at 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 at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>