[WikiEN-l] DNA, Mav, 168

[Anthere]

>It is completely wrong to characterize this as a me
vs >168 issue.   Several people on Talk:DNA have tried
to >work this out with 168 and Lir. This  last bit
>saw one revert from me, two from Bryan Derksen, three
>proposed  compromise versions submitted by me and 6
>reverts by 168. After 168's last revert 
>to his favored version, he protected [[DNA]]. Erik
>later de-sysoped him for 
>this. 168 then blanked his user and user talk pages. 

Let's be more accurate.
The current issue on the DNA (I mean, the content of
the page itself) is clearly not a 168/Mav issue. It is
more a 168/Lir issue that degenerated into
meaningfullness. Most of the original contributors to
the debate are wisely hiding themselves :-)

In a mail I received saturday, I had this comment (I
dare making it public, because it is so true :-))

"I don't envy your position as mediator. Personally I
think I will go  back to investigating whether
Huntsman spiders will really bite people as they are
claimed to do, and whether it really hurts so much
when they 
finally do it. I think maybe that is safer. ;-)"

Note that Lir is extremely discreet as well.

That leaves just a couple of people hurting
themselves, and a good contributor leaving.

Mav just happen to be an element in the last reversion
scheme.

However, the arbitration issue is another matter
entirely.
Mav wanted the arbitration to consider whether to
unsysop definitly 168, or perhaps to get a pledge from
him not to abuse power again.
168 considers Mav was highly unfair to him, and is
partially responsible of what happened.

In my great innocence, I had hoped that the sysop
issue could be fixed before we could go back to an
unprotected article.

In my other great innocence, I had hoped that any
conclusion resulting from the arbitration committee
could help 168 feels better, and approach the article
in a better frame of mind.

God preserve my innocence ! :-)

>An except from 
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168
>(you should read both summaries if you want an
>overview of the two  versions of
>events):

I added a third version :-)

>On March 5 DNA was unprotected by Kingturtle.ns.

All the report by Mav is entirely correct.

>Jimbo has not decided yet whether to allow admins the
>ability to block 
>users for 24 hours for breaking this rule. 

And this is correct as well.
And I do not think there was an emergency to unsysop
24 hours after the reversion war. This should have
been Jimbo or arbitration committee to decide.

Anyway, this conversation is pretty much academic now.
168 left anyway.
Wikipedia is actively making sure to select
contributors for their strength and ability to resist
pressure and bullying. That won't help decrease the
conflict to do so.

ihmo :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com