[WikiEN-l] Re: Mav and168

[Anthere]

Daniel Mayer a écrit:
> 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. 

Good :-)
I asked because I was ensure

>>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. 

Another issue is whether he wants to be a sysop again or not.


>>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. 

Ok. I understand.


>>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 mostly think that there is confusion between the various issues, and 
once there is more clarity, we can move on.
I do not think going to arbitration at this point will be an answer to 
the current situation.



>>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. 


1) the DNA point might need to go to arbitration perhaps, but it is my 
understanding the arbitration committee wishes to avoid to decide such 
issues (I may be wrong). I do think this is the last issue to settle, 
and one that can only be done through discussion and common agreement. I 
suggest we forget about it for now.

2) The Lir case is another matter.
168 current troubles come from his opinion that Lir is a vandal (which 
is a controversial opinion, apparently not only his opinion). I think it 
is clear to anyone that he did this to cast light on this issue, and to 
warn us that some of the members in the community suffered of that 
problem. Whatever what the community think of the way employed by 168 to 
make light on this issue, the light is now on it, and I think there are 
enough people now aware this is a serious social trouble.
You and other people have already declared being willing (or are already 
trying) to find a solution for this.
Ultimately, Lir case might be one for arbitration, or not, but right 
now, I think it should be dissociated from 168 case.
168 raised the issue. Some people will try to fix it. Perhaps 168 should 
now be patient and wait that this proceed at its own pace.
If the issue is still there in 2 months, maybe someone will have to 
scream again. But right now, the noise is enough, let us trust those 
willing to work on Lir case to do so.

3) and 4) and 5) are the issues at stake for mediation. Not 1) and 2).
The problems between you and 168 are rather private, which is why they 
should be separated from Lir case now; You may perhaps also represent 
the community for the point 3 (which is likely to be about his behavior 
as a sysop, and whether he should be sysop again or not).

Or perhaps point 3 should be discussed with someone else later ?

I do think that once 168 see that Lir case is being handled by competent 
  people, he will be willing to discuss these 3 issues.

This, I think, for various reasons, including seeing some of the current 
discussions on talk pages, would benefit in being private.
Once we admit that 168 did this as a political move, we can discuss 
this, rather than simply "judge" him.
Sending this to arbitration, which could decide to remove the sysophood 
permanently, or restore it with a warning, is not a solution. That would 
be neglecting why he was very upset at the situation on the DNA article, 
why he found himself expressing his pain this way, how it was perceived 
by others, how he reacted in turn, how it escalated...well, not good.
I think most here would say 168 is a good contributor, he deserves more 
than just a trial, no ?

Anyway, I hope this might clarify points so we can move on to more 
constructive discussions :-)

>>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

I do not think it is a good idea.

Thanks for your answer Mav. I appreciated :-)