[WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

Tue Dec 12 12:04:58 UTC 2006

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 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
>