Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:00, 20 November 2007

Unprotection

I have unprotected this talkpage following some discussion with other parties in this matter. I have also unprotected WP:ANI - I would take it as a sign of good faith on your part for you not to post there while we are discussing matters here. I have at no stage been convinced that you are MyWikiBiz however I have been concerned by some of your conduct since then. If I am to unblock you, which I am willing to do, it must be on condition that disruption ceases. I suspect the difficulty will be in everyone agreeing what is and isn't disruption here. If you were to unblocked, what edits would you be making? WjBscribe 16:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for drawing the potentially incorrect conclusions that you were somebody else, or that you were proxying for somebody else. Trustworthy people have reassured me that is not the case, based on what you told them. I hope you will agree to be unblocked and cease causing disruption. If so, I will take no further interest in your affairs so long as you refrain from involving yourself in mine. - Jehochman 16:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As a starting point for discussion, I would propose:

1. Not editing the talkpages of Durova or Jehochman
2. Not emailing either of those users without prior invitation
3. To disclose your account (either to those involved, or to some mutually agreeable admins who could ensure this agreement is followed)
4. That neither Durova nor Jehochman deal with you in their roles as admins (either as this IP or your account)
5. No further use of open proxies
6. To let this matter go and not raise it again at ANI or other pages you have posted to
7. If you have future concerns you wish to raise about Durova or Jehochman, run them past another administrator first - e.g. myself or User:Sarah

Are those terms acceptable? WjBscribe 16:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

All except the last one are acceptable to me. Sarah refuses to talk to me. Choose an uninvolved administrator, please. - Jehochman 16:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, we'll stike Sarah for now. I dunno if I'd be acceptable to 24.19.33.82 but perhaps we can come up with a list of suitable people. 24.19.33.82 - how does this proposal seem to you? WjBscribe 16:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not keen to have an angry editor stalking me. He knows who I am, but I don't know his main account. As part of the settlement, I need to know who this is so I can protect myself. I am willing to keep this information confidential. - Jehochman 16:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a workaround where a third party (or several) was aware of 24.19.33.82's account name so as to make sure he was sticking to the bargain. I agree it would be difficult if no one knows. As well as the potential risk of 24.19.33.82 using his account to duck the agreement, there'd also be the problem of other accounts being wrongly accused of being 24.19.33.82 in future. So we are going to need some transparency. WjBscribe 16:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. We have 1300+ administrators. Surely we can agree on a few neutral parties. Naturally, there's a chance I could act against the main account for some other reason because I won't know which one it is. - Jehochman 17:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, you don't have a "need to know" this person's identity. If some account stalks you, then deal with that account appropriately. People here have a right to anonymity. Videmus Omnia 16:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

T

Anyway, I think we really need 24.19.33.82's feedback on this before we can progress the discussion further. WjBscribe 16:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)