Rick wrote: I have admitted it was me. I object to sysops banning logged in users without discussion. SEcretlondon

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. 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. So I don't think Mav is still willing to discuss something that already occurred. ------ Apparently, 168 motive to discuss with Mav was the bias with which he brings complaints against me and so predisposes the community to a negative evaluation of my behavior. I don't think it's completely conscious, but it's extremely unfair. ------ 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". I would like you Mav to be clear about your opinion, as you made no comment since then. You are the one who requested mediation, it would be nice if you could give your current opinion on the matter. If you do not wish to discuss the matter at all, please remove your request from the page in question :-) I personally have the feeling the case is not close, but if you do not wish to discuss it any more, it is confusing to let your request stands. ------- 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. 2)I did what I did as a political act of martyrdom in an effort to change the system, therefore I want a public trial in which I will be able to give my reasons for what I did and to talk about pathological behaviors of the group which I believe led to my punishment. You can talk privately to my adversaries, if you like, but I would rather talk publicly 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. 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 Some people told me mediation was useless, and I should just recommand people to be patient, as the issue 3) was solved by the unsysoping and 2) will be fixed in time by some people working on it Ihmo, that only solve 2 of the 5 points. We may of course fix Lir case in time, and quietly deeply bury 168 concerns. That is a matter of community fairness or unfairness toward a contributor perhaps ? ------- Anyway, these are just thoughts of the past 2 days discussions here and there. I would like feedback on these points from 168 and from Mav. As well as some others. 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 :-) Friendly yours ant