If that is an issue, then it should be between Mike and Hephaestos. How does that involve Rick? Ec Rick wrote: (snip)

Arwel Parry a écrit: The experiment should be successful perhaps * if Danny is not blocked every couple of days * if Michael succeeds to edit quietly, under one account, without wrongdoings, no more than the maximum of pages per day * if we do not loose endless hours discussing this :-)

Rick wrote: This is an interesting philosophical thought. Michael getting "his way" would be being un-banned and gaining access to editing Wikipedia. Jimmy getting "his way" would be having Michael become a well-behaved and respected contributor. Both are being persistent. There is no conflict in having both "get their way". They meet nicely in the middle. Timwi

Rick a écrit: You might also see that an anon has posted as Michael on Michael's Talk page, and has flatly refused to apologize. May I remind you that Jimbo took that decision to ban Michael, and that Jimbo took that decision to unban Michael. There are some reasons for doing this, it does not come of nowhere. Jimbo made a deal with Michael. That deal does not mention that Michael should apology. Michael already expressed contrition for his past actions. Changing the proposal made by Danny, proposal which is the basis of the agreement between Jimbo and Michael is just making the agreement between Michael and Jimbo bogus. I think as well that extorting an apology will just result in Heaph receiving an apology which will be dishonnest. What is the sense of this ? I understand well that Heaph may appreciate to have some apology (I also deleted wrong accounts on meta several times) and I really hope he has some one day. But a true apology is *offered*. It would be more relevant that the deal is accepted as is, and if Michael joins quietly editing again, he will perhaps quietly come to apologizing. Also, why is it important that an anon has flatly refused to apology ? There is no proof that this anon is Michael at all. Finally, I will comment something Anthony wrote in the talk page of the proposal : Regarding your point number one, other accounts should not be blocked if they cause too much collateral damage on innocent AOL users. This should be the case until such time that the automatic IP blocks can be fixed to stop allowing blocked users to engage in this denial of service attack. I also think that it's too much of micromanagement for the board to get involved in reviewing this. I'd rather see it reviewed by the arb committee, the mediation committe, a subset of this, a specifically chosen group of people, or Jimbo himself. Dealing with problematic users should not be a board activity. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] I would like to insist that the proposal has been made by Jimbo (as you suggest in your proposal), after a meeting of the mediation committee + Jimbo (ie, were present amongst the members of the mediation committee Danny, Sannse, Angela and Anthere). Consequently, I do not see very well where the problem is. Now, if you consider neither of us 4 are members of the mediation committee and as such do not constitute a subset of the mediation committee, I highly suggest that you explain better what you would see. In the end, I see only that an attempt to find a solution to the problem is just being actively sabotaged.

Arwel Parry wrote: He has expressed contrition. It is unclear to me whether this will work or not; I am personally a bit skeptical. But I think that we should move forward with respect and love and benevolence, and hope for the best, and work for the best as well. It is hard to give specifics, isn't it? If Michael becomes an accepted member of the community making good edits with minimal ongoing guidance from his friends, and the rest of us are not bothered by it, then we will have achieved something remarkable. --Jimbo