User talk:とある白い猫/Dispute resolution

Statements

 * Please briefly answer these set of questions in your own section.

SBJohnny

 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Historically in the C++ Programming book, but lately it's spread throughout the project.


 * Who's involved?
 * User:Panic2k4, and just about everyone who has tried to contribute to that book.
 * More recently he's become unpopular with more than a few others, because he used sockpuppets to evade a block.


 * What's going on?
 * "Total mayhem" sums it up rather nicely :). I was going to answer here (busy yesterday, sorry!), but Panic appears to be baiting me on his talk page (disparaging metaphors and legal threats), so I will keep my self out of this for the time being. I can be contacted on IRC or email if there are any questions.


 * What would you like to change about that?

Panic2k4

 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Wikibooks, but directly related to issues already stated on the arbitration logs.
 * See: Arbitration/Panic2k4 vs. SBJohnny
 * That is the source, everything after was derived from the way it ended.


 * Who's involved?
 * User:Panic2k4 and User:SBJohnny at least on my side and for now.


 * What's going on?
 * Wrongly blocked 3 times by User:SBJohnny (in reality I lost count at 5 but some weren't made by User:SBJohnny but he strongly supported them)


 * What would you like to change about that?
 * I wish for someone to specify and evaluates the accusations in a proper way and point to me situations that validated the use of a block (even if wrongly performed), so I can clear my name (as I'm still open to agree to be in error at some point), address the abuse of the block policy (as it was not fallowed and resulted in continued damage to my rights as user and person) and removal of blocks (can't see that last one happening, but if a strict use of site policy is made and issues are addressed in order later actions can be disregarded at least that is my opinion)
 * Since I don't know in what order you will want to pick this mess apart, it is my suggestion that you would start by (for the sake of the community and to ease your job), analise the way the arbitration was terminated not only for my benefit but because of the minority of people that stood up against what clearly is not the way things should be done on wikibooks, I also call your attention that during the time the arbitration was proceeding I was not under block nor restricted to edit, if you agree with the way the arbitration was terminated (not to the fact that it was terminated), then there is no point on your attempt to analise the other events, as we would as I have with User:SBJohnny and others a very different view on how to come to decisions, respect others and in general fallow policies.

Proposed agreements

 * Below are intended to be proposed agreements, anyone can propose any constructive suggestion, however only involved parties can "vote" to agree/disagree

Sockpuppets
Regardless of the intention sockpuppets should not be used to evade any kind of block (Justified or not)
 * Proposed by: Cool Cat
 * Vote:


 * Support -- I came pretty close to getting blocked on wikipedia a couple times (edit conflict over italics,,, long and painfully boring story), but even though I was right, I wouldn't have used a sockpuppet to go around a block. -- SB_Johnny | talk 03:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Staying Focused
Regardless of any wrongs or injustice that Panic has, agreeing to stay focused on the problems that the community has with Panic that has continued to cause him to be blocked, putting aside any disputes or objections he has regarding policies, the GFDL, laws, etc.
 * Proposed by: Darklama
 * Vote:



Involved parties only
I really want to focus on what is at hand today, not what has happened in the past. I can't change the past. Panic2k4 what exactly would you like to see changed? -- Cat out 13:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My block.
 * If we reduce the scope so much then I really haven't got a problem with anyone since all actions will be outside of the discussion. You then should address the one that blocked me and ask why I'm blocked and what purpose does the block address that will only reverse the order of analysis as he probably can't justify the block without using the past as reference.
 * Anyway I seem to have read someone opposing this debate, I think we should address first the community concerns, even about the lifting of the last block to allow me to participate and at least come to an agreement on who agrees to participate and in what way and what is going to be addressed and how it will be applied, if the agreement is only between me, you and SB Jhonny then the community will have to respect our wishes even if in the end the last block can't be removed at least we would be working to resolve SB Jhonny problems with me. --Panic 23:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the better approach is for us to come up with a resolution to the dispute that the community would agree with. You can't just work outside of the community, you are supposed to be a part of the community -- Cat out 05:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If a dispute is between 2 users the community doesn't have to be involved, unless the solution would in any way have impact in the community itself, for instance a simple edit conflict would only need the 2 users or a third (or more) as arbiter(s) if so requested and agreed, a unblock request is a bit more trickier and we at the moment don't have a policy that would cover that, but the same solution is applicable (as was being used on our case), the user and the blocking administrator can get to an agreement or a arbitration can be used without no intervention of the community as it would not involve them, (in my case the problem was bigger because it was the first time and people did fear the arbitration of administrative actions, that I think was the main problem and the objection a significant part of the community had and why they imposed the end of the process and as I see it against consensus).
 * In any case I agree to discuss anything with anyone, see if you can define the problem in any way, but you should be careful on what actions you think we should address, it is my understanding that SB Jhonny is ok with your let's call it moderation, now he must define what are the subject he agrees to discuss or see addressed, it seems he declared a very big range and since you are restricting the time frame we would consider, I can't help you more, I gave you an idea from where to start, you can even agree to discuss and analise the problem outside of any "moderation" or arbitration with me, and show me were my action were incorrect, even that would at least help me, if in any case you came to share my view of the problem you may consider helping me addressing the problem next to the community. Any solution would be advantageous to all, inaction will only aggravate the problem. --Panic 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, lets try a little different approach to the issue then. Why do you feel you were blocked for? -- Cat out 06:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

Bad assessment of the situation by the administrator, probably (I don't know and can't understand some of the actions) due to disagreeing with me in other points regarding interpretation of the author vs contributor and GFDL as his opinion was closer to that of the user. I had a valid (as justifiable based on policy) dispute with Darklama, that was being addressed, he could have been misinformed outside of wikibooks but I can't comment on that. Resulting in abuse of (as not implemented in accord to) the use of the block policy. (If we are addressing the first 3 blocks) --Panic 06:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I cannot solve the 'past' disputes as they are a thing of the past. Please, lets focus on the present. My inquiry was for the very last block and what you think of it. -- Cat out 12:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was illegal, it didn't obtain community consensus nor it emanated from an administrative action, in accord to the block policy in relation to any new event caused by myself. If I got it right the last block was performed at request of SB Jhonny but no specific reason was given, it was a direct result from other events that you are putting out of the discussion. --Panic 17:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am merely trying to focus on current events. What is this deal with GFDL? Is that the root of the problem? I do not understand the disagreement at all. -- Cat out 18:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have my user page monitored, I'm discussing there with Whiteknight on the GFDL, as for the author vs editor, most users seem to understand the any type of edit grants authorship of a work (this discussion would be futile on wikipedia but it seems to be a real problem to users o wikibooks to come to the understanding of the legal definition of author).
 * It is not the root but I think it is probably part of the problem the biggest one seems to be the revaluation of an administrative decision, I have writen a short story that resumes all the events (no users names were used), and it is not a exact account nor it intends to be, the "judge" character is used to simplify things also. --Panic 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Other comments
Cool Cat please remove this message if you feel that it doesn't belong here (not sure if this discussion is open to all). In my own opinion this problem has got out of hand and as Panic and SBJohnny have made clear above there are several different issues which makes it all the more complex. The original blocking of Panic took place on 9th December and was a short block issue by SBJohhny for trolling which (I think) concerned the infamous C++ book. It is believed by most users connected to this book that Panic had a negative influence over the book and wanted control over it and this feeling had scared off many would-be users. The following day a 2 week block was imposed by SBJohnny for continued problems associated with Panic and the aforementioned book. Later, on 3rd January, Panic was blocked for a further 2 weeks for similar problems and again by SBJohnny. He was later unblocked pending a long arbitration which was to be arbitrated by Robert Horning. Unfortunately it seems that not everyone approved of the arbitration but as no alternative suggestions were made it went ahead anyway. After a few weeks Robert Horning was absent for some time and so Withinfocus took the decision (after waiting a long time I should add) to end the arbitration and make a decision on his own. He chose to block Panic for 6 months and promptly did so. Robert Horning, Panic, myself and some other regular Wikibooks users were not happy at this decision as we either felt it was unfair or without community support. However I think that there were more Wikibooks users who supported the block than didn't. After much thought and some complaints from different parties I took the decision to unblock Panic and reimpose the original 2 week block (that SBJohnny had originally given him and what the arbitration was brought about for) as I thought this was a 'fairer' compromise. Since this time Panic has been reblocked indefinitely and this has not pleased some users (myself included) as I feel that indefinite blocks whould only be used against the worst kind of vandals of which Panic is not. During ongoing discussions with SBJohnny, Panic created some sockpuppet accounts to prove to the community that blocking users doesn't ever make them go away. His decision was not a wise one and this prompted further opposition to Panic although the majority of his action with these sockpuppets was of a good nature. Then you arrived Cool Cat and will hopefully sort all of this mess out.

My personal opinion is that SBJohnny was correct with his original 3 blocks but it may not look good if it's the same administrator performing the blocks each time. Panic certainly should never have been reblocked indefinitely nor for 6 months but he must commit himself to working with the community and addressing any issues he might have with SBJohnny and C++ authors. I believe that the issues about GFDL and sockpuppets are just distracting us from the real issues. Thanks for your time y'all. Xania talk 23:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the above opinion nor the reported assessment of events (in particular to have a problem with several users on that book), I do comprehend that it is how User:Xania sees it and value his position on how he interprets the events and I take this chance to personally recognize him as one of the few that chose to object to the more objectionable actions that took place, and by doing so getting involved on the subject and taking a personal risk to defend his opinions. Kudos to him for  the action and exposing his views even if I don't agree with him.  --Panic 23:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that I am not the only contributor to the C++ book to find that Panic's actions made it not worthwhile to continue to contribute. I certainly had the impression that Panic characterized one set of corrections I made as "vandalism" because they did not correct all instances of the particular mistake I was addressing or some such.  That struck me as very odd, given that the reason for my edits was documented on the associated talk page, and that in any number of cooperative projects, the normal reaction to noting that somebody had contributed an incomplete correction would be to help them by applying that correction to other applicable instances of the error it addressed.  Talk of vandalism is immensely adversarial, and would seem not to be in the spirit of the "assume good faith" guideline.
 * Further evidence, to my mind, of the non-cooperative nature of Panic online is in his tendency to turn discussions of reasonable conduct into attempts to define rules. It's part of what makes a Wiki community work that it does not need a lot of formal rules, because people work together to reach consensus.  If a community within Wikibooks can't get along without a lot of rules, I think they're unlikely to get along with a lot of rules either.  I have experience in a fair range of online communities, and I've never seen anything quite like the current debacle.
 * I'd be willing to put it all behind us, but Panic's conduct during this whole sorry affair has continued to be one of arguing rather than appearing to cooperatively seek a good solution based on an accurate understanding of the situation. At this point I really do not know whether Panic argues for the sake of arguing, or whether he really does not see the problems that others do.  Panic is good at transforming a discussion to avoid the aspects he wishes to sidestep, but I think it would be better for him and the community not to do so; let's agree on what has happened first, and then make judgments on what to do going forward.  -- James Dennett 06:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Two more notes: firstly, that most of what I see written here has been written before during this process. I'd like to see some notion of at least a partial plan for how to ensure that we don't just go around in circles.  Secondly, maybe I should have written this elsewhere (or not at all).  It's not clear which dispute this "Dispute resolution" is intended to resolve (which was also a problem with the previous attempted arbitration).  It would be a good step to make sure we have a clear statement of what we're trying to achieve and why. -- James Dennett 06:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with James Dennett. Panic's behavior is very odd and has an adversed effect on people. I also agree with SB_Johnny in that Panic's very odd behavior has spilled over into the general community and as a result increased the intention given to it. I agree as a result, as Xania put it, Panic has had a negative effect on the community. I agree with James Dennett that Panic's conduct throughout this whole sorry affair has been one of arguing and avoidance rather than cooperatively seeking a good solution based on an accurate understand of the situation. I agree with James Dennett and as others have also said, that it would be better for Panic and the community to stay focused and have a plan to ensure that we aren't just going around in circles. Finally I also agree with James Dennett that the previous "dispute resolution" did not make it clear what was intended to be resolved, what we are trying to achieve and why.

I believe this "dispute resolution" or "mediation" should in the spirit of staying focus on what is an ongoing problem, "here and now", as I understand Cool Cat wants, should be about resolving what problems the community has with Panic's behavior that has been the driving force of all the previous and current blocks, so that the community can, with or without him, move on to writing books rather than focusing on this. Unfortunately I don't believe Panic can or will agree to focus on this and will continue to try to focus on what he considers unjust blocks, wrongful use of Wikibooks/Wikimedia policies or wrong with them, and abuse/violation of the GFDL and laws, until he is no longer able to do so. As a result, causing this to draw out longer than anyone has time or patience for or ending very badly for him --dark lama  09:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have very little knowledge on the details of the past dispute. If more people were involved with it we could adjust the mediation to accompany this. Of course this is assuming parties involved would agree to this. -- Cat out 14:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out that for myself, I am not entirely happy with the statements that have been made against me, particularly by those who were critical of my being "absent" from discussion about the arbitration. I deliberately tried to stay away from IRC discussions and the usual watering holes in part because I wanted to detach myself partially from the community and seek some objectivity. I also deliberately tried to set up an arbitration system that would protect Panic from abuse, and give him the best opportunity to defend himself and and get a conclusion to the whole matter. Instead (nothing against you personally Cool Cat) it appears as though those with an axe to grind against Panic were shopping for a venue that would confirm the ban that had been placed on Panic... even after I took over the arbitration.

From my perspective, what happened instead was that those who didn't get along with Panic (and there apparently were several) were quite upset that I hadn't blocked Panic already and wanted some action immediately. I also engaged briefly in both an edit war and a wheel war over the situation with Panic, and I was faced with the dillema of either trying to continue and broaden the wheel war or aquiesce and let the current "cabal" (as I mentioned on my talk page) take over. I do feel like I was bullied into letting Panic get blocked, and I'm still not entirely happy that it happened at all. The "lengthy" period that I was "absent" was not even two weeks, and by Wikibooks standards that is generally a short time to resolve things.

I will also mention that on my own, while I have tried to go through page logs, deleted pages, and user contribution logs, that I simply don't see where Panic has done all of the damage that he is being accused of doing. It seems more like a content edit war, with an additional twist that pushed Panic into the mess because he was writing a C++ Programming Wikibook, another group was writing another Wikibook on essentialy the same topic, and some admins came along and forced the merger of the two efforts even though there really was no community policy that really required this to happen. In some ways, the fight is artificial and occured precisely because of this merger. Experence on Wikipedia doesn't apply here as books are much more involved and you can find multiple book about the same topic... even by the same publisher. The idea that one and only one book on a given topic can ever be written on Wikibooks has never been codified as policy and I would fight that policy if it were ever tried. I do believe that this is ultimately the source of all of the contention, even though it has moved on.

In almost every case when people have even touched dealing with Panic, it seems as though logic goes straight out the window and either you want to crucify the guy or are dazzeled and confused by the whole mess. Panic does have an abrasive personality and has created some hard core enemies. Of that I'm sorry that people have to be so offended but it happens. But that happens even elsewhere and you simply have to get along with people like this. Even so, I never felt that any of the user blocks were justified, and I feel that I am being threatened with a block on my account if I try to do anything more right now, including trying to defend Panic. I also find it odd that one of the ways that people were trying to deal with Panic was to establish policies that would empower them to be able to go after this one user. I could speak volumes more, but I will say that for myself, I consider Panic to be a good friend and a very productive and useful contributor to the Wikibooks community. He is not a vandal or the usual rogue user who seeks do deliberately damage this project, but rather somebody with a very different world view that apparently some people here can't appreciate or cope with. It is far too bad that he is being singled out for so much attention in such a negative light and being told that he is not welcome on Wikibooks by what appears to me as a small but very vocal and active minority on Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 20:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion between Panic and James Dennett
(At Panic's request, I've moved this here from his talk page. -- James)

About User:James Dennett: I don't have nor ever had any problems with James, my original post and comments about the situation and links to actions done on that regard are on part 1 of my response to the accusations on the arbitration log, I will repeat here again in a resumé,

James (and this is only my view on things, it can be wrong but facts support it), James is a old contributor to the C++ book he has been working on it since 2004, I have had nor reason or intention on addressing him directly before that post, he had not been involved on any discussions on the book evolution or to my knowledge on wikibooks in general (I know Paddu talked to him in 2004, the time of the fork and he also was contacted by the both User:Darklama and SB Jhonny near the arbitration days), in any case the so called "conflict" or what James is calling "my accusation of vandalizing" is clearly a confusion of his part and probably based on how he understand the situation and I already have (even before the block) requested apologies for it. The alleged "conflict" is about a 3 or 4 scattered word contribution, a post he made on the talk page requesting no alteration, his lack of signature of that and other posts, my conversation with other users at that time (I was busy addressing other 5-6 users including the ones I already named) and hadn't the time to check the text, his edit did transform humm incorrect information in nonsense, the request was made in the spirit I already stated I recognize and have James in high regard (relating to the book topic and even his edits on the book) and I consider that even if not shared by some wikibookians, he is a fellow author of the book as he has already added a significant quantity of his own content to it. I also note that he did not formalize a complain about my post on my talk or on the lounge as it is requested and that as soon as the user stated distress on the same book talk page I acted on it to clarify the action, I also remember that it is my view that even if productive on the book the user was unaware and unexperienced with the social relations or even etiquette (like signing his posts), I don't say this in any way as a disregard to James, but to point out that he may have seen thing a bit differently that one more experienced user (only he can say if that true or false). (I'll edit later and add links to the text).

I agree with James in several points things should be addressed, censorships and objections to debate will only provide cover for incorrect actions, there should be no fear on showing the truth, and debate even if it is not wikibooks objective is at the last degree beneficial to shared understanding, even if I don't agree with James and other users (but not on the same problem James points out, it seems that James object to the initial part of the text and the other users objected only to the time limitation), we can address that, and see if it really is a violation of policy and if the intention was of abuse from my part. --Panic 16:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care to debate the meanings of words: whether something is "conflict" to you, doesn't change the fact that there was a communication problem and that I personally found your approach to be grating and a violation of expected codes of etiquette. There was a problem, whether you agree that the term "conflict" applies or not doesn't matter; pick a different term if you prefer.

Claiming that things are "clearly a confusion on [James Dennett's] part" assumes your own conclusion. But maybe you can tell me what you were referring to when you wrote of some edits that they were vandalism?

I am not talking "about a 3 or 4 scattered word contribution", and I did not make "a post... on the talk page requesting no alteration" (though I would and did ask that the page not be reverted to remove the error corrections).

Regarding "a lack of signature of that and other posts": when people assume good faith, there's not always a need to sign every point on a talk page. Whilst it's often useful, it's also useful to keep egos out of it by just posting impersonal information. The spirit of the rules is more important than a dogmatic application of it. (I'd say that's something of a meta-rule; if the rules act against the best interest and the stated goals of the community, the rules are in error. This may be a clash of personality types; apparently some view adherence to the rules as being vital even when the rules need to be changed.  We'll never be able to formalize enough rules, or accurate enough rules, that the rules alone determine what conduct is good and bad on Wikipedia.)

Your claim, repeated just now on this page that "his edit did transform humm incorrect information in nonsense" is offensive to me. (You probably did not mean offense; this is a simple example of how something said without malice may still be offensive.) What was there previously was nonsense (because it was diametrically opposed to reality); after my edit, it was less so (most of it was accurate and with the associated note on the talk page, it was trivial for any other editor to help out and complete the transformation to accurate information). A cooperative community acts that way.

You write "I also note that he did not formalize a complain about my post on my talk or on the lounge as it is requested". Indeed I did not; rather that recourse to authority and rules, I hoped that quiet diplomacy would be more effective. Clearly it was not effective. On the other hand, attempts by "authority" to ask you to work on how you deal with other people have so far not even achieved any recognition on your part that your conduct does alienate others and dissuade them from working on the C++ book.

Of "as soon as the user stated distress on the same book talk page I acted on it to clarify the action", I would say that instead of clarifying the action you acted to assert strongly (as you do again here) that you are in the right, by stating numerous things that are not consistent with what I have seen. You've not shown a willingness to address the points that have been raised numerous times that threaten your interpretation (for example, you've not responded to my repeated notes on why a partial correction is better than no correction).

Regarding "I also remember that it is my view that even if productive on the book the user was unaware and unexperienced with the social relations or even etiquette", while it is true that I am no expert on Wikipedia rulesmithing, I am very experienced with online etiquette in general (for example, I've moderated comp.std.c++ for the last 8 years, I've contributed to various FAQs, and I fear I've made thousands of posts to other programming-related newsgroups). One Wikipedian asked me politely to sign my talk notes, and since then I've done so (any exceptions being accidental).

I don't think the intention was abusive on your part; the actions, though, were inappropriate for a cooperative community. It's vital for a work such as this that you must not classify an incomplete correction as leaving "nonsense" -- it's a work in progress, and that's a very valid thing for a wikibook that doesn't claim to be near completion. Instead of welcoming the correction, you threatened to revert it to incorrect material. I don't know how many potential contributors have decided not to work on this book because of all the factual errors in it, but it was a big factor for me when I walked away in 2004, and to see it happening again was most disappointing. We need more openness to corrections, not less.

In the end it comes down to this: I'd like to work with others on a good online resource for people learning C++. There are many inaccurate resources online; there are almost no accurate tutorials/books addressing modern C++ from the perspective of someone learning the language. My time to contribute is limited, and there are other places I can contribute to the programming community as a whole. If helping on Wikibooks doesn't get results to justify the time it takes, I'll be elsewhere. This isn't a personal thing; I've not been out to see you reprimanded, which is why I've not made complaints until after others did. I preferred to talk away rather than making waves, but then I've seen that the waves were already there. -- James Dennett 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your view point and probably it was a limitation of my vocabulary, but I don't take that a change I make if nonsensical does in any way, state a fact about the author (only on the result I will check the dictionary, Lacking intelligible meaning). I'm don't have English as my natural language but I don't think I'm that off the mark. (the edit you took offense was probably read out of contest, I remember you that Darklama raised exception to the use of the WE word (as in WE, wikibookians) and then I explained it to him on that same talk page and moved to his talk page just to remove any confusion you could possibly take from what I was saying to him), I was talking that the general way we deal with similar edits on the day to day are to revert them (and said if I'm not in error that I only made the request, in place of a direct revert because it did came from you), I haven't read you comment (just glanced I will provide a full reply to your point but consider this lines and check again (as it is on the arbitration log the only post I directed to you on that talk page). Please move the above comment to CC Discussion Page as soon as you can, :) in 3 days max I'll delete it from here, it will still be on the history. <- is this offensive to you or abusive even if we now are talking about my talk page, I would have preferred someone did place some info like that on some reverts done to me in the past, this was the alleged reason for the blocks. --Panic 22:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(...James was asked to move his comment to the discussion page, I Panic will try not to alter the text of the first post I made regarding his involvement, but still want to add links there to see if James can agree with me that I it was not my intention to call him a vandal nor in any way put his work in question)

Comments from darklama
This is intended to address a broad range of comments by different people and concerns they may have.

I want to mention that I believe Panic may think he is and was blocked for simply having a different view than that of other users and administrators. I wish to try to make it clear for him and anyone else who might have similar thoughts, that this is not the case. I would be the first to defend Panic if I thought that was the case. I also want to say that new policy proposals that have popped up were not directed as an attack on Panic, but as a mutual. yet unspoken agreement, that some policies could use clarification and some things on Wikibooks taken for granted, but were never formalized as proposed policies may need to be, even if there were disagreements on what should or should not be a policy. None of this should be a part of any discussion that decides whether or not to block or unblock Panic.

I believe Panic to be blocked for being uncivil and destructive in the mist of trying to work together to work out differences. I believe for Panic to be unblocked that he needs to understand why he has been considered uncivil and destructive in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. I rather see him having a long block now that involves people trying to help him understand how he has been uncivil and destructive in the eyes of those who believe the blocks were warranted rather than have uncivil and destructive behavior repeat again later out of any perceived ignorance of what he's done. I think this needs to be defused now rather then allowing the block/unblock dance to continue which seems to only increase the divide and frustration for Panic and everyone else involved.

I don't want this process rushed as attempts to do so in the past have. I would prefer this mediation to end with everyone understanding what was being addressed even if not everyone agrees that it needs to be addressed. I would prefer this mediation to end with everyone satisfied with what was addressed even if not everyone is satisfied with the final decision and books have to be copied offsite in order for people to be able to continue to contribute to the books in peace. I would prefer this mediation to simply be the end to any future need to block Panic or to address the issues that resulted in his blocks. I would prefer this mediation to work, than have the next step be a steward making a decision for Wikibooks.

As a first step, can everyone agree to what is to be addressed, even without agreeing that it needs to be addressed? --dark lama  14:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)