Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Mediators Emeriti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Essjay

I am moving Essjay out of the "Mediators Emeriti" section because the lead text states "Mediators emeritus are welcome to take part in Mediation Committee activities at any time." Without any animus towards Essjay, I think that this statement does not apply to Essjay. If you disagree, revert me.

It may be useful to consult the Emeritus article. Emeritus doesn't just mean "former" or "retired"; it also carries with it the sense of distinction and meritorious service. Rupert Murdoch is partly right "meritus" does mean "you deserved (or earned) it".

Essjay may have performed meritorious service as a member of the MedCom. I know that he served Wikipedia well in many capacities despite his stupid fraud which tainted all of that service.

The question is whether we want to list him as a Mediator Emeritus and whether we want to extend to him the invitation to return and participate in MedCom activities "at any tiem".

--Richard 16:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but personally, if he ever felt the desire to return to Wikipedia and to the MedCom, I for one wouldn't bar his reentry. Others may disagree. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with ^demon, and I remind Richard that the decision on who we allow into the Committee rests in internal hands, and no-one elses. Hence, the decision on this distinction remains with us, and no-one else. Daniel Bryant 00:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Mostly I was making a suggestion but perhaps I should have just opened a dialogue on one of the Talk Pages. See apology below. --Richard 04:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe Essjay has lost the trust of the Mediation Committee. He certainly hasn't lost mine. Essjay helped make the Mediation Committee what it is today. I hope he does come back, as I miss his company and advice. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 03:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought my edit was a "no-brainer" but maybe it was really me who had "no brain". I made my point and it appears that I was wrong. --Richard 04:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)