[WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

Tue Dec 12 11:37:14 UTC 2006

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 at 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 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
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

-- 
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/