MONGO and the ArbCom

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
133 messages Options
1234 ... 7
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

MONGO and the ArbCom

Concerned Wikipedian
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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

Jimmy Wales
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
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

Concerned Wikipedian
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) <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> > > [hidden email]
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by NSLE (Wikipedia)
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 <[hidden email]> 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?

--
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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (554 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

Concerned Wikipedian
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) <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I'm curious about two things here:
>
> 1. Where's the arbcom decision?
> 2. 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
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Concerned Wikipedian wrote:
> On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I'm curious about two things here:
>>
>> 1. Where's the arbcom decision?
>>
> 1. At 5/0, it's a foregone conclusion.

I said /where/, not /what/.

--
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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (554 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

Concerned Wikipedian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision#MONGO_is_desysopped

Jimmy, that offer I sent to you via private email is open.

On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> I said /where/, not /what/.
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:21:16 -0500, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
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
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

Jim Schuler
I am inclined to agree with Guy on all of his points.

On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:21:16 -0500, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
> 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
> >> [hidden email]
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >WikiEN-l mailing list
> >[hidden email]
> >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
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

KillerChihuahua
In reply to this post by Jimmy Wales
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
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>    
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>  
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

KillerChihuahua
In reply to this post by NSLE (Wikipedia)
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 <[hidden email]> 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
>>> [hidden email]
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>>      
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>    
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>  
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

Jim Schuler
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

Jeff Raymond
In reply to this post by Concerned Wikipedian
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


--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: [hidden email]
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
        Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
        - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

Matt R-2
In reply to this post by KillerChihuahua
--- Puppy <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Jim Schuler
> 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.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

KillerChihuahua
In reply to this post by Jeff Raymond
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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

NSLE (Wikipedia)
In reply to this post by KillerChihuahua
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by KillerChihuahua
> 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).
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MONGO and the ArbCom

NSLE (Wikipedia)
In reply to this post by KillerChihuahua
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 <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1234 ... 7