Jump to content

User talk:24.19.33.82

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.19.33.82 (talk) at 18:24, 21 November 2007 (→Unprotection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

Not many, probably. This unwelcome conflict has sucked a lot of life out of me. If I edit again in the shrt term it will be for uncontroversial mainspace changes and discussions on policy pages related to privacy issues. In the longer term who knows?24.19.33.82 (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Talk 16:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I anticipate having no reason to complain about you or to use proxies once I'm unblocked.24.19.33.82 (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

All of those are very acceptable except disclosing my account. This shouldn't be required to edit as an anonymous IP.
Along with me letting it go, I'd like Durova, Jehochman and whoever else to let it go, stop trying to figure out who I am, pressuring anyone to betray me, or preparing sanctions against whatever username I might have.
You can see in the history that I didn't seek them or drama, they came to me, and I'll be happy when they go away.24.19.33.82 (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All except the last one are acceptable to me. Sarah refuses to talk to me. Choose an uninvolved administrator, please. - Jehochman Talk 16:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I like Sarah but it sounds like she doesn't like being in the middle of this. If Durova and Jehochman leave me in peace, I don't see why I'd have any further concerns about them besides what I've already expressed. The need for a designated mediator presupposes a continuing struggle, in which I've no interest.24.19.33.82 (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:24, I think that Will's proposal is very fair and I personally support it as a reasonable way to end this disruption to the project. Please do consider accepting these terms. Sarah 16:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

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 Talk 16:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Talk 17:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Talk 16:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your support has heartened me, Videmus Omnia. That's what I'm saying, too. People here have a right to anonymity.24.19.33.82 (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, the only thing you ever had to protect yourself against was discussion of your block. If you block people, you're going to have to get used to those. If we both move along as if this never happened eveything will be fine. All this paranoia about me breaking the deal and stalking you with socks is…paranoia. The only thing you have is my word anyway so you may as well take it.24.19.33.82 (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Well it seems that agreement is unlikely as far as revealing the account name is concerned and there is no way to compel such agreement. It seems then that the best arrangement possible requires some amount of trust on both sides. I do understand that neither side has much reason to trust the other.

  1. 24.19.33.82 will not edit the talkpages of Durova or Jehochman using his regular or any other account/IP
  2. 24.19.33.82 will not email Durova or Jehochman without prior invitation
  3. Durova and Jehochman to take no further steps to discover the regular account used by 24.19.33.82
  4. 24.19.33.82 will not pursue this matter further using his regular or any other account/IP
  5. No further use of open proxies

Such a compromise would be far from ideal but does allow everyone to move on and put this behind them. WjBscribe 11:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that you'd leave yourself open to joe jobs. You've posted that IP address from TOR nodes a lot of times. And I've received candidate questions about this. I answered them on the good faith assumption that some troll had spoofed you. Now that I know differently, I'm in a very awkward position. Especially if any more follow-up questions arrive. So I'll agree to this proposal because I want the ordeal to end, but it may very well be that this doesn't end it.

The other day I made a mistake and I owned up to it and extended apologies. If you come clean on one of the administrative boards, I'll accept an apology promptly and ask for early thread closure. Then everyone can put this behind us.

Otherwise, if a TOR node posts in the same pattern again, I'll investigate again. I haven't checked the headers on those e-mails, but I could. If someone asks me another follow-up question on this topic I won't lie. DurovaCharge! 18:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, are you saying that your block of this IP as a MyWikiBiz sock was in error, and that your real reason for maintaining the block was TOR posting? Shouldn't the block log be amended to state that? Videmus Omnia Talk 18:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trust WJBscribe to amend the block log if that is necessary. We need not concern ourselves with that detail. We have a deal. Let's not stir up more controversy. - Jehochman Talk 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I haven't checked the headers on those e-mails, but I could."
I'm amazed, Durova, that with all that's being said on your ANI subpage, you'd choose to say something like this.
If I come clean you'll accept an apology? You're the one who blocked me based on bogus finding that I was MyWikiBiz, and you want me to apologize to you?24.19.33.82 (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.19.33.82&oldid=172949287"