[WikiEN-l] Re: 'Michael' unbanned

Sat Sep 4 01:43:19 UTC 2004

Rick a écrit:
> The "unique experiment" is that, if you're persistent enough, you get your way. 

You might also see that an anon has posted as Michael on Michael's Talk 
page,

and has flatly refused to apologize.
>  
> RickK

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.