[WikiEN-l] Re: Mav and168

[Daniel Mayer]

Anthere wrote:
>I would like to ask Maverick to tell me whether yes or no, 
>he still  maintains his desire for mediation with 168. I am 
>quite ensure of that. 

Why are you asking here? But yes I do. 

>When Mav requested mediation, he said he wanted this 
>for the following reasons
>        What I want is for 168...
>        - to stop abusing his sysop user rights,
>        - stop engaging in edit wars
>        - and for him to start cooperating with others
>
>request for 1) is now bogus, since 168 was unsysoped 
>before any mediation could start. 

*Temporarily* de-sysoped. To be reinstated he is going to have to demonstrate
that he won't abuse his sysop user rights in the future. So far he seems to
indicate that he thinks that he didn't do anything wrong. That is an issue. 

>....

>To the specific point 168 raised above, Mav answered
>        I don't have enough time to deal with all users I think have issues.
>My next project will be Lir.
>
>This seems to indicate to me, that Maverick has now no wish to discuss 
>the matter any more. I read this as "now that you have been unsysoped", 
>your case is closed, let's move on to Lir topic".

No - it means that after this is over I'm going to put LIr through the same
process in order to try to resolve the dispute many people have with him. Each
of these cases takes a lot of time - I can't do more than one at a time. 

>....
>
>Note that 168 consider the whole topic is *not* closed

>168 is willing to discuss this (and other non mentionned 
>points I suppose), but do not wish to do so privately.
>He says
>        1)I have nothing to hide and I wish that to be clear. 

Interesting given his repeated deletion of the RfC page on him. 

>....
>
>This does not seem to have anything to do about mediation 
>as we see it. Mediation is not a public trial. I do not think I can 
>be of any help if the current discussion is a public trial of 168.

Perhaps - that is up to 168. I'm fine with you declaring that mediation is not
possible and referring the matter to Jimbo (who would then have to decide
whether or not to give it to the arbitration committee). 

>I also think there are several issues here
>1) fixing the DNA page
>2) fixing Lir case with some of the community
>3) fixing 168 sysop issue with most of the community
>4) fixing 168 feeling of unfairness from Mav
>5) fixing 168 desire of public trial

All still issues, yes. 

>...
>I would have liked to discuss this privately with both parties, 
>but I can't do so if I have no private medium to do so :-)

Why can't we just do all this at the bbs site? It's not private but then it
isn't much viewed either. 

--mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html