User talk:Panic2k4/blocks and other bits

= call for comment = This is a call for comment (open to anyone who wishes to participate) on what your view is on the subject. Both darklama and Panic agree that what is needed is clarification and the opinion of others to help resolve this issue, and depending on the outcome a guideline or policy may need to be created or existing ones clarified to help prevent future confusion and similar disputes.

Below is a summary of what we agree and disagree on along with a each of our views on what we disagree on.

Summary
Both darklama and Panic agree that anyone is free to contribute to any wikibook and that no one individual owns a wikibook and controls its contents and all opinions are welcomed and should be taken in consideration.

Both darklama and Panic disagree with each other's interpretation of the GFDL, author status, weight of contributors on a book community discussion and whether or not Decision making also addresses decision making of book contributions in addition to general wikibook decisions.

External information provided

 * A copy of the GFDL exists below every wikibook page but a full and probably more complete version is available in (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html ).
 * In reference to moral rights and authors it was pointed out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Moral_rights).
 * References to law were given (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp) and a not so clear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law) and it is believed that since Wikimedia Foundation is registered in the US that those are the bases we work under.

Darklama point of view
darklama Defends that the GFDL states anyone who make any modifications can add to the authors section, his or her name and that the GFDL does not state what or how many modifications are required to do so. Wikibooks policy AFAIK, only makes an exception to this in the case of anonymous, unregistered users who have contributed. Wikibooks does not favor contributors based on the weight of their contributions to a book in the decision making process, only in the number of participating registered users who vote for or against a decision in the case of a straw vote. Discussion between book contributors who disagree is also managed through the use of the Decision making process.

Panic point of view
Panic Defends that the GFDL does a distinction from editor to authors, based on their changes to the work (it doesn't define author per se so the legal meaning is implied). So that punctual changes on content, content deletion, page moves and reformatting of the structure, book rename and determining who has the right to be included as an author (ie: spell checking will not grant you a place as an author), or for instance choosing of a book cover should fall or be managed (discussed, approved or be dismissed) only by the book authors or recognized contributors (the de facto book community). Wikimedia does also provide guidelines that places a distinction on users/contributors for example in voting and any wikibook or community working on them HAVE to be guided primarily by the GFDL. It is his opinion that if any one has the same decision rights, a book will stall, generate needless discussions (probably by people that will not or have not contributed content to it) and only generate chaos without producing content (for instance a group of spammers could aggregate and freely vandalize a book if only numbers would allow it) or even become a copyright violation (Panic doesn't like IP, or copyright laws but has anyone must obied by them).

Comments by User:SBJohnny
I've been watching this with some concern, and I'm afraid Panic is getting out of hand at this point. You write:


 * "I, at this moment, will not recognize you as part of the C++ Programming community, as in author or by having contributed content to the book, I recognize and value your work in correcting spelling, the motivation of trying to change the words of phrases so it could be easier to understand to beginners and a will to try to better the work nothing more."

When it seems that you have in the past "shot down" any changes darklama wants to make. Going by this approach, you would be the only "recognised author" here, and can simply make sure it stays that way be repeatedly reverting another contributor's edits.


 * Not so...--Panic 16:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the GFDL is deeply mistaken: the GFDL has nothing to say about "author lists" or disputes between authors, except that all authors (including those who spellcheck, etc.) are credited in any copy made of this book on another project or in print (in the edit histories of each page). Your misuse of the GFDL to justify ownership of this book is truly appaling.


 * Ho not, not you to, gezz...


 * "this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others."


 * Yes, but this doesn't say anything about "who gets to edit". -SBJ


 * Yup it doesn't but Wikibooks provide the framework, anyone can edit, but as wikibooks policies takes only votes for a user within 20 edit rule, books contribution should fallow book communities decissions or are you saing that there is no designing or controling body on a work that it's only vote by numbers? If so is there a structure or is it chaotic edit and never ending reformating of a work? If it exist who does have a place in deciding the evolution of a work ?--Panic 16:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement."


 * This refers to either print versions or forks. It has nothing to do with creative control (except that it gives full control to anyone making a fork). -SBJ


 * "Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document. (the author section is one)" - SBJ


 * "Author section" = "page history".


 * Nope, "Author section" is a copyright declaration and a substitute to the authors list that should be in the title page, "page history" is the section refered in GFDL Entitled "History"--Panic 16:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As we are in wikibooks and not in a dead tree book a broader use of "title page" is used, heck even the ugly invariant sections are made impossible as they must be listed with the license. But if we accept "Secondary Section"  ans every linked page that has to do with the title and is evident that that particular "Secondary Section" gives a list o copyright holders not only to authors but from works that where merged.
 * But my point is that a list exist on the GFDL, even if you consider not to be that particular list. So you are plainly wrong.
 * Again you must use the US law definition of author as there isn't a redefinition on the GFDL, those who spellcheck are not authors under any law (not mine nor the US law), and yes the "history" section is preserved in wikibooks so a correct list of authors can be asserted.--Panic 16:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your misuse of the GFDL to justify ownership of this book is truly appaling.
 * Don't put words on my mouth, I don't claim ownership of the work the GFDL prevents me of doing that, I claim creative control (here) and a place on authors list and refuse to grant that same rights to anyone that doesn't contribute content to the work as an author. We could even conceive that is if a list of authors in a book is adulterated by someone that is not an author, legal action could be lunched against him (the non author) and the publisher (wikimedia) as he will be violating the copyright law by claiming authorship of a work he didn't produce.

We don't have a lot of policy pages on wikibooks that apply to your behavior here (this is the first case I personally have seen where they would come in handy), but on en.wp your actions here would fal under WP:OWN and WP:WL. -- SB_Johnny | talk 10:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll grant you one thing if your share User:darklama POV, then I and probably many other authors that were contributing to wikibooks are not doing so with full knowledge of what the rules and interpretation of the GFDL is here...--Panic 15:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Every time you edit a page, a warning statement appears below the editing window which includes the following sentence: " If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." Claiming creative control amounts to ownership, and there is absolutely nothing, anywhere in either the GFDL, in wikimedia policy, or in wikibooks that grants you that. If you want creative control, then don't write on wikibooks, because all of the things that might seem rediculous to you are in fact the case: in particular, the authors of wikibooks do not have any control over the content they add here. None, nada, zip (even your Mona-Lisa-with-a-Moustache example actually does fall within the GFDL). -- SB_Johnny | talk 16:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha, then then the example of the aggregating-spammers example that take over a book development works?
 * BTW, Wikipedia Ownership of articles doesn't apply here books do have authors who sign them and take liability for the content they provide, and I own the content (not the particular copy of it) but I and others do have the copyright (if you like to call it ownership, I don't particularly like the word) on parts of the work and only the wikibook is under GFDL.--Panic 16:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If there are books or chapters of books containing material that has a copyright restricting any usage that would be more restrictive than the GFDL, then they should be listed for speedy deletion (use copyvio and include information about the original material that was copied). -- SB_Johnny | talk 16:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, as the content is the same and I'm the author of both copies this one I released under GFDL and the others that I didn't release under GFDL.--Panic 16:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK then. If you want control, work on the other version. If you want collaborators, work here. If you want to pick and choose your collaborators, do it elsewhere, because you can't do that here. -- SB_Johnny | talk 16:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Humm what you say and this is a divergence with User:darklama is that there is no sutch thing as a book community?


 * &larr; reset tabs

AFAIK, signing "author pages" is similar to signing the "project members" list on a wikiproject. All it means is "I'm here, and I'm hoping to help make the book better". These pages have no "official standing"... as far as the copyright stuff is concerned, it's the page history that matters, not the author's page (e.g., the person who writes the most is not obligated to sign the authors page, but if you're printing/forking, he/she would obviously be a primary author). The author's page, like the to-do list and other pages often appended to large books don't need to be printed or copied onto printed versions or forks. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, even more it's my opinion that removing that section wouldn't be legal and a direct violation of the GFDL--Panic 17:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's legal (I've seen this discussed many times on foundation-l and wikipedia). If you think about it, having that level of inclusion would mean that you can't print out and publish a collection of wikipedia articles, but would instead have to print the whole thing (including the talk pages, village pump, etc.)... the wikipedia is in a way just a really big wikibook :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you point me one of those, anyway you shouldn't use wikipedia as a bases for wikibooks, they aren't the same not even on the subject matter they deal with simple one page articles, we here deal with books. --Panic 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, my personal POV about this is that neither of you is handling this well: obviously you both want to make an excellent textbook, and for some reason you just can't get along. You've wasted a lot of time talking about how you should talk to someone else about how you should talk to each other about making a better book. Just let him edit and see where he goes with it: you might learn something from him, and he might learn something from you. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm do agree with you I could have been more tolerant and calm but it is the third time I had to deal with interference like this first, I created a dif. book in respect from the previous author, then was forced into a merge by a moderator (that had nothing to do with the 2 books) and now out of nowhere someone changes and moves pages from the book, alters the order of chapters and deletes content I view as informative, well if all have the same decision rights then I would just take it quiet and let him do as he wishes, but I'm not of that opinion, if this is how the majority sees it I'll just move along and would have no intention on continuing contributing to wikibook, I'll be very sorry to have spent 2 years working on those books.--Panic 17:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can take the time please state your point of view above if it's similar to User:darklama just stated it and add the diferences if you can provide any more helpfull links that would be great, BTW one of the last ones on wikipedia (ownership) just died, txs. --Panic 17:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I already stated my POV about your collective need to just talk to each other. I don't really have one otherwise (I'm not a programmer, will never be one, and so I'm not really prone to having one on the book you're working on, which is why I'm reaponding to your request for comments). -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The VPs are not about a specific book but on the general GFDL and wikibooks discussion not reference is made on a particular book and my divergence with User:darklama on that book structure is not the largest problem. I will move them to a proposed policy next. --Panic 18:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(reset tabs) -- What's a VP? Go ahead and bring this up as a policy, but don't try to enforce it until it's accepted. If you stalk darklama and revert his edits en masse, you will be blocked...same applies to him. -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * VP = View Point, NVP = Neutral View Point... humm I still have a reversion to be applied right? only a re-reversion would count as a reversion war :). Where can I read about this chaotic rules of engagement? and if they aren't done/reverted/changed back by me (account/IP) ? What are the rules then ? And what is needed to change his edits? a vote ? who votes ? --Panic 18:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Follow this policy and you'll have no worries. -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well we all try to avoid being one, but that is no response to what I asked or requested that is a just a trow in to end a discussion by making the other party to shut up to avoid being called a dick. What will that accomplish ?!? I could have done that to User:darklama in the beginning and saved a lot of time...--Panic 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's all that's required (i.e., try not to be one) :-). -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Whiteknight
I've been trying to keep away from this discussion for some time now, but I have been specially invited by User:Panic2k4 to give some opinions on this matter. First off, I'm reasonably sure that the version of the GFDL in use here at wikibooks is located at GFDL. Outside versions of the license, and new revisions of that license are (as is my understanding) not the versions that should be invoked here. I may be wrong on that point, but luckily I don't think different versions of the license make much difference in this matter.

To the matter at hand: There is no official distinction between contributors in a page, but it is my opinion that certain people rise above the crowd in terms of contributions and dedication to a particular project. I refer to these people as "primary contributors". I would like to note here specifically that the term "primary contributors" is a slippery topic, and I will refuse to define it nor quantify it in any way at this time. Wikibooks grants a large amount of latitude to the first person who creates a book: That person can mandate the naming scheme, the navigational structure, the scope, the target audience, etc of the book. Once the book has been created and is established, frequently there is left only one or two dedicated editors whos contributions make up the majority of all contributions to that book (the "vast majority", not 50% majority). These users, by virtue of being both dedicated and unopposed in making decisions, again have a large amount of freedom to do with the book as they please. This only extends so far as the primary contributor is unopposed in making such decisions. If a new user comes to the book and begins making contributions and making decisions, then neither user can act unilaterally, and Decision making rules must be followed to guide the direction of the book.

In this case, as is my understanding, User:Panic2k4 has been a "primary contributor" to this book for some time, and has had nearly unilateral control in the direction of the book (or at least parts of the book) for some time now. User:darklama is a relative newcomer who made some changes to the book that panic did not necessarily agree with. In this situation, neither user has unilateral control of the book (Panic2k4 is no longer unopposed in making decisions). In this situation, decisions regarding the direction of this book need to be made by concensus between the active authors of this book (Panic and Darklama). When there are only 2 people, "concensus" can only really be obtained through agreement of both authors (50%, or a 1-1 tie is not "consensus", ever). Changes to the following facets of the book then require agreement from both members, or they should not be made: The addition of new material, or alterations to the existing material by either member, so long as they don't alter the book in one of the ways I have listed above are acceptable, and don't require agreement from both members. Should an edit war or a wheel war occur from such changes, then agreement must be reached.
 * Changes in the scope of the book (material that is or is not included)
 * Changes in the voice or the target audience (Changes to the level of presented material, the difficulty, the use of language, etc)
 * Changes in the navigational structure of the book (page moves, page deletions, new navigational templates, edits to existing navigational templates)

These are just my opinions, take them for what they are worth. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

To Clarify: User:darklama should have consulted Panic before deleting content, changing the book structure, and moving pages. However, Panic doesnt get a "veto" on the contributions of other authors, but he does get equal say. Again, if there are only two people in the discussion, both people are going to need to agree on all substantial changes before they can be made. The addition of content can be done by either author, but the deletion of content (especially if it was written by the other author) should not be performed without agreement. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Humm so in a 1:1 stand off you say that if no agreement is reacher the status quo is to be kept ?
 * And the use of the word author do you recognize its definition as in the GFDL (as difened on the copyright law) or any edit grants that status (in violation of copyright law)?
 * You seem to share User:darklama that any kind of contribution to a work does provide a place in decisions regarding its evolution, that can be extrapulated from the rules that are defined on wikibooks but it was not my understanding and I claim that it could be dangerous, I can implement a proof of concept that will show just that, without breaking any rules that are in place at the moment, by using other users as ghosts or even taking the time to surround me with allies I could turn any vote in favor of a particular view... --Panic 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do agree that any active, well-meaning users should get a say in the direction of the books in which they are active. I say this because people who have had few contributions in the past may very well grow to become leading contributors in the future. New contributors are allowed to be part of the editorial process, and I would remind you that it is official policy that we don't bite the newcomers. Saying that new editors are not "part of the community", and that they are not allowed to edit a book certainly seems like biteing to me.


 * Well in my view wikibooks are communities inside communities, contributors all are part of the general community but people that submit content (by definition authors as stated by the copyright law should be the ones on a specific book community and have a prevalent say, it is my view that allowing a non author to be named as author of a book and signing as one is an infringement of the GFDL and my personal rights if I'm one of the authors as it erodes my contribution to a work)--Panic 23:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In a 1-1 standoff, there is no concensus, and the status quo is kept. In this type of system, making drastic changes to a book (which it seems you dont want anyway) is more difficult.)


 * I also am trying not to use the word "author", but instead generalize to use the word "contributor". Whether you are an "author" or not according to this license or that copyright law is insignificant to me: you are a contributor, and darklama is a contributor.


 * Do you recognize authorship of a work to any contributor ? (as allowing its name to be placed on the book as author, this part has noting to do with communities but general rights).--Panic 23:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Decision making, the use of clones is not allowed for making decisions. If you want to make a change, instead of trying to overpower your opponent, you are encouraged to discuss and reach compromise. You can't always get everything your way, and sometimes you need to give a little to get a little. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This can be easily be circumvented (but by being a dick as User:SBJohnny colorfully puts it) and is in fact impossible to police, even the simple example of alliances with other users would do it.--Panic 23:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not saying whether darklama is an author or not. I am saying, however, that he is a contributor. The two terms are different, and I am only going to talk about the latter. If you insist on talking about authors, then we are comparing apples and oranges, and this discussion has reached a standstill.
 * As to your second point, It is irrelevant whether I recognize "authors", because the legal distinctions about that are already well-defined in the GFDL and relevant legal texts on the subject. If people are listing their names in the book in a method extraneous to the page history, then those listings fall in the domain of "page content", and the page content can be decided upon by the contributors to the book.
 * And to your third point, Decision making is a very general policy, but the text of it was drafted to prevent circumvention. The idea behind the decisionmaking policy is that the quality of an argument is far more important then the quantity of the arguments. If you have a network of clones, or if you have a weak alliance, it is unlikely that the arguments of the many will be any more provocative. Notice also that Decision making disallows the use of majority voting, so large amounts of allies can't force a decision to be made: an effort must be made to appease the dissenters, if any. This is "impossible to police", but since it is site policy, it is unwise to ignore it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(reset tabs) -- I see your points but it seems I'm not the only working on a vacuum the contributors and authors mess created by the wiki framework and a confusing statement of the law, we in wikibooks need a clear policy that will clear all the points we don't see eye to eye in, a simple search on google (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.wikibooks.org%20authors) proves my point, we can even take the extreme that is the Wikijunior_Solar_System/Authors and a myriad of interpretation and spooling of guidelines and rules, I will try to create one (or more) policy proposals with the bases we have discussed here.--Panic 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A policy proposal on this topic would certainly help matters, I think, but proposals are a can of worms. Getting people to discuss a proposal, and getting people to agree on a proposal are very difficult tasks, and consume alot of time. I will certainly help you draft such a proposal if you want.
 * My advice to you in this time, if you care to heed it, is to find a way to see darklama as an ally, not an enemy. Both of you are active, and both of you want the C++ book to improve, even if you both have different ideas about how that improvement should take place. I had asked darklama to take some time to back away and cool off, and he respectfully has followed that suggestion. Everyone knows that you have contributed alot to that book, your name is all over the page histories, so I wouldn't worry too much about your attribution as a valuable contributor. However, there was a time when you were new to this project, and you have gradually grown to reach the position that you are at now. You wouldn't have had many contributions if everything you wrote was reverted. Because your contributions were not reverted when you were new, I ask that you don't revert darklama's contributions now either.
 * I understand all your objections, and I know the frustration that you must have felt. There are a number of books that I am the primary contributor on, and I can be a little protective when people start making lots of changes without discussing them. I would like to see this situation be resolved, and I would like to see you and darklama work together to improve our C++ book. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments by User:Swift
I've been sitting on the sidelines reading through this as it has been coming in, gathering my thoughs and debating whether to join this little bag of fun. Since I find it difficult to respond to Panic's request for comments on my talk page in the discussion above, I'll state some of my views on the matter here.

Please add your comments at the bottom of mine since in-the-middle comments makes the discussion hard for others to follow and join (this isn't quite email). For context, simply quote the relevant sections.

An important thing to remember is that when you modify a Wikibook, you become the author of it (the so called Modified Version). Essentially, Panic is the author of this version while Darklama is the author of this one (65.91.254.98 is then the author of the current one) as of this writing. Wikibooks is simply a "temporally linearized fork repository" &mdash; each version is preserved in the history along with a list of past contributions on which the work is based on with the most recent version presented as the Wikibook module.
 * Author status and weight of contributors

No author has any rights to future revisions. As the GFDL does not restrict authors of Modified Versions to consult the Document authors or principle authors on how he wishes to modify it, this would allow for trolling, spamming, vandalising etc. (if done within the restrictions of the GFDL). Wikibooks policies, guidelines and accpeted behaviour are an added layer on top of this to create a productive working environment for a community of interested partners.

So far the Wikibooks community has opted for consensus rather than giving established contributors greater weight in decision making. A common reasoning being that any disagreement should be settled by the quality of the arguements for each view, not the amount of material that an editor has contributed.

The GFDL states that Modified Versions must... "B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement."
 * Author pages and authors vs. contributors

As the GFDL applies to any medium, this indicates that the Title Page must have the name of the most recent contributor (even if this was only minor spell checking) along with up to five of the principle authors. I could not find a definition for "principle author" so this becomes a slippery little sucker.

Furthermore, given that this electronic forum doesn't really have conventional "title pages" I'm not quite sure how to implement this. Personally, I like SB Johnny's understanding of the author list as a project members list. Those who consider themselves active contributors to the Wikibook rather than occational contributors may sign themselves on those lists at their own discretion. This may be more of a sign of intent than past contributions.

Also, this doesn't really fit well to the method of writing Wikibooks since it is all done on page basis and not in complete page form. I can see the page history as an accpeptible solution to this which I don't think GNUs would object to harshly as long as print-like versions adhere to it.

I'm reluctant to comment further on the Author pages. I'd advise everyone to evalueate their priorities to see if this is really the most important topic to invest their time in. If not, move on with more pressing matters. If someone is really a trivial editor, his mentioning can always be removed later. Remember people, there is never any need for urgency in editing these books. Any version can be reverted to.

I agree that the book community should have a certain amount of "sovereignty" in matters dealing with the development of the book. Issues to this extent, such as book specific manuals of style, have been discussed in the Staff lounge. The wiki premise, however, allows anyone to join this community and contribute.
 * Book community

Panic stated in that "It is his opinion that if any one has the same decision rights, a book will stall, generate needless discussions [...] and only generate chaos without producing content". Well, experience shows otherwise. With policies like Be civil and Assume good faith and a common interest in a successful outcome, wiki communities have been able to overcome differences and settle disputes. These same objections were raised against Wikipedia in its rise by its detractors. Granted; a single example won't prove a case, Wikipedia is young and still in active growth so the ultimate verdict isn't in yet, and there are notable differences between the two venues. Still, the concept of a consensus based community has withstood some pretty difficult tests and in that process assumed certain rules of behaviour to ensure cooperation. We will be wise to learn from those lessons.

The last concrete item that I can weed out of the statement of views sections is the matter of decision making. Though entwined with the subjects already discussed, it is important enough that I want to elaborate on it seperately. And important matters deserve brevity:
 * Consensus

The decision making process has nothing to do with the GFDL. It falls under the practices of the Wikibooks community. The current practice is to seek consensus through argument based debates. In that, quality of arguments, not seniority, is paramount.

Essentially, the important distinction that I find that needs to be made is that between the GFDL and the Wikibooks community. The former determines how to accredit past contributions, while the latter how to organize future work.
 * Summary

The GFDL is out of our hands, but we can mold the Wikibooks Best Current Practices to our needs. Again; Be civil, Assume good faith and a commitment to achieve progress through consensus have served us well in the past and, I believe, will continue to do so in the future. --Swift 08:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy from the staff lounge

20 New Rules

so we can all work together


 * 1. Wikibooks is a project for everyone with good faith, patience, a willingness to learn, and a desire to share.
 * 2. Everyone can edit, but everyone can also change every edit.
 * 3. Rules are to help, not to obstruct.
 * 4. A good stub is better than no article.
 * 5. Improving is better than deletion, but deletion is better than keeping bad material.
 * 6. Wikibooks is neither a playground nor a discussion forum.
 * 7. With appropriate care, every book can someday be the book of the month.
 * 8. Relevance isn't derived from your location.
 * 9. Technology is the means, not the end.
 * 10. Quality comes from experience and constant improvement.
 * 11. Relevance is what the reader is searching for to expand his own knowledge.
 * 12. Learning from others is the key to success.
 * 13. Common sense is something everybody needs but few choose to use.
 * 14. A textbook describes subjects objectively without a moral point of view.
 * 15. Quality doesn't happen by adding a warning box.
 * 16. If you have a very strong position on something, you will find it difficult to write about it in a neutral manner.
 * 17. Obstructionists and agitators will be shown the door.
 * 18. Admins serve the readers and editors.
 * 19. Nobody who does good work is replaceable.
 * 20. There are indeed more important things in life than producing books.

Needs to be unpediafied, but seems to be a good start for the rule or rules :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unpediafied now :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

= Copyrights proposal draft (free to edit) = Copyright is the ownership of an intellectual property within the limits prescribed by a particular nation's or international law.

This policy (draft) provides the users a view of commonly accepted interpretation (at Wikibooks) of the existing legal framework (in witch Wikibooks operates) and tries to provide some clarifications where a need may exist and aggregate all similar information on a single policy.

Wikibooks® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (registered as a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of Florida, USA, as such it MUST obied by Florida and USA Law), it consists in collection of free content books licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (protected for legal reasons) with some limitations, this is the license that protects all the works and authors on Wikibooks.

If a need exist to take action against a copyright violation at Wikibooks the ultimate instance will be contacting the Designated agent (protected for legal reasons).

The order of relevance to Copyrights and Law issues is:
 * 1) USA general law. (federal gov.)
 * 2) USA Copyright law. (federal gov.)
 * 3) Florida, USA laws. (state gov.)
 * 4) GNU Free Documentation License. (EFF)
 * 5) Wikibooks policies. (Wikibooks Community of registered users)

Use of wikipedia articles

Using more than simple phrases from Wikipedia articles without providing, either a copy of the contributors history or a link to the original article or mention Wikipedia as a source in the Authors page, will essentially constitute an "unattributed mirror" and falls under the copyrights violation policy (copyvio tag).

Discussion area (to be moved to the talk)

 * References to law were given ( http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp ) and a not so clear ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law ) and it is believed that since Wikimedia Foundation is registered in the US that those are the bases we work under.


 * Copyrights (protected for legal reasons)
 * Provides clarification to the GFDL and its use on Wikibooks.
 * To display author information, please check the "Page history" for modules and "Authors" page of any book
 * no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts

Clarification of the GFDL, the copyright law that deals directly with a wikibook.
 * Work (Book)


 * Author - Author is the one that creates or contributes for the creation of a work, after creation and/or publication of the work, the one that assumes legal responsibility for it and rights over it, each subsequent alterations to the same work fall in several categories including revisions, re-editions, translations etc... It is considered that a existing work can only be co-authored with the previous authors if it is considered a derivative work.


 * NOTE: GFDL states that any derivative works should remain FREE under a compatible license to GFDL itself.


 * derivative work - new work based upon an original work to which enough original creative work has been added so that the new work represents an original work of authorship.


 * Edits (Derived Work) Assume_good_faith


 * Contributors - the one that contributes to a work, as editors, collaborators, an author can be considered a contributor but not all contributors may be authors, for example spell correction, reformatting will not constitute original creative work, on the other hand translation do.


 * Managing other right holders, derived works that were merged, solution to the invariable section etc...

See also Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works

= Book Community draft (free to edit) =

Anyone is free to contribute to any wikibook and that no one individual owns a wikibook and controls its contents and all opinions are welcomed and should be taken in consideration.

The book community has "sovereignty" in matters dealing with the development of the book but can not go against any wikibooks policies, it can however extend those and apply other policies that will affect only that particular book and the community working on it.


 * In reference to moral rights and authors it was pointeed out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Moral_rights).

= Probably pointless = Hi - don't suppose you would like to work on an external links policy proposal that everyone can then show complete indifference to!? -- Herby talk thyme 08:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam recipe! - here for hacking if you want! -- Herby talk thyme 12:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll edit as soon as I can, but I think the policy should not be only on link spam, It should start by defining what spam is.--Panic 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem with that - I prefer the phrase "external links" anyway -- Herby talk thyme 13:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

= You are blocked, again. =

You have been blocked from editing for 2 weeks, for among other things this comment, and more specifically for saying "I did not demand, I gave him a time frame to complete it".

You are not in a position to assign time frames. This is a wiki, and we work together to create content. We do not work because someone said it was OK to do so.

Should you choose to rejoin the project after two weeks, please keep in mind that the next block will be even longer... the only reason I refrained from making it an indefinite block is because of your long history here and your obvious desire to make a good C++ book. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet another warning, and a response
Don't be paranoid, it's unbecoming. We might discuss you from time to time on "other channels", but the decision to block you was mine and mine alone. The IRC channel is free to all, BTW, and the only administrator I talk to on the phone is not particularly interested in discussing this... you are not the most pressing issue in our lives, or on wikibooks for that matter.


 * "Ah... don't forget there's a lot discussed on the IRC channel too (I prefer realtime discussion to talk pages)."


 * I'm not paranoid, you implied that you were discussing on another channel, I only said that I really can't see that as positive since the only involved parties on the debate we are having is you and me...
 * (in the event of something useful is said the proper place to have that information for others to check is Wikibooks). --Panic 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks is a community that writes books. The GFDL is the licence we use, not the definition of our community. As far as your rights under the GFDL, they will be protected even if I or someone else blocks you indefinitely... it's apples and oranges ("apples and oranges" means "two completely different things"... let me know if I'm using unfamiliar idioms).


 * Herr, I disagree the GFDL (with limitations) is the bases of the community all else stands on top of it, it is not the "definition" but it's the root from what everything else must evolve from. I strongly disagree that it is like apples and oranges, it is more like trying to build a roof before you have walls. --Panic 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of "implied" rules on wikibooks that everyone else seems to understand well enough.


 * "Implied" rules are bad and are open for personal interpretations and abuse, if one seeks to have any rules they must be written down and open to public scrutiny, last time I checked we didn't have a secret handshake, herr do we ? --Panic 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Darklama knows quite well how "stuff" works around here. And I'm "picking on you" because you requested moderation. I gave you the benefit of the doubt with Darklama, but when you started doing the same to another contributor the day he arrived, you gave up your benefit of the doubt.


 * Humm well I regret that you fell that by "picking on me" you are moderating the discussion, it would be better if you just enforced the rules we have (or tried to prove that I'm wrong or I'm acting badly) lets examine your first post on this problem again...

as it was after 3 edits by you

Comment by User:SBJohnny

I've been watching this with some concern, and I'm afraid Panic is getting out of hand at this point. You write:


 * "I, at this moment, will not recognize you as part of the C++ Programming community, as in author or by having contributed content to the book, I recognize and value your work in correcting spelling, the motivation of trying to change the words of phrases so it could be easier to understand to beginners and a will to try to better the work nothing more."

When it seems that you have in the past "shot down" any changes darklama wants to make. Going by this approach, you would be the only "recognised author" here, and can simply make sure it stays that way be repeatedly reverting another contributor's edits.

Your interpretation of the GFDL is deeply mistaken: the GFDL has nothing to say about "author lists" or disputes between authors, except that all authors (including those who spellcheck, etc.) are credited in any copy made of this book on another project or in print (in the edit histories of each page). Your misuse of the GFDL to justify ownership of this book is truly appaling.

We don't have a lot of policy pages on wikibooks that apply to your behavior here (this is the first case I personally have seen where they would come in handy), but on en.wp your actions here would fal under WP:OWN and WP:WL. -- SB_Johnny | talk 10:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Concern and out of hand demonstrates that you are from the start refuting that I'm in good faith and saying that I'm abusive, which is false.
 * My phrase can be considered a bit aggressive here but it was after a bit of other posting between me and darklama and I still consider it valid, since darklama did star to change format without contributing to the text book. These are against the "written" rules and you took no action to correct it, not then not ever, even after a dispute was evident. (btw I don't contest any addition of content to the book done by darklama, I can't remember one but by now he must have written a few lines).
 * You refer that I have herr "shot down" any changes, that is correct and on the point it is my right to contest changes to the book I'm working on, it is your "job" as administrator that failing to obtain a consensus, things remain as before the dispute arose (notice that I didn't revert any changes, or moved pages back), so the rest of your point is not correct.
 * It seems by now if not completely correct my interpretation of the GFDL is better than yours, it is now proven and debated (see WB:OWN that the GFDL does indeed refer to "author lists") more you could also check the lines it defines derivative work but I will do it later as the OWN still misses the author definition). As for the rest, I hoped that you should have gotten this by now, I do not and never did claim control on any book (even more using GFDL to support a similar claim is just nonsense)
 * My behavior up to this time has been clear, non destructive and I claim, not even obstructive to the Wikibooks project, if you can base you accusations you should do so), by using vague terms and personal interpretation you are always failing to provide me a base to contest/correct and to advance the discussion over any misconception you or I may have. --Panic 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Forking is not a problem (the GFDL is, essentially, a guarantee of the right to fork). Forking is a problem on wikibooks, because there's a long-standing consensus that there shouldn't be 2 books on one topic without good reason, and your inability to collabotate is not a good reason. What's the point of doing this on a wiki if not to collaborate?


 * I don't agree, forking is not a problem not even on Wikibooks (do you want me to define what forking is?) as I said before forking using the GFDL is very good and productive, content is provided and it should increase the rate of contribution if both projects are really evolving as it fosters competition, it gives freedom to the authors and later on, the community can do what it likes without forcing views or preferences on the contributors, the books will exist long after the authors/contributors are gone.
 * And as I said before and this is an important point, "strangely enough after the fork the previous version stagnated and only my fork evolved", this should settle any more references to the problem that I had with Paddu (it is similar to the actual one but not the same and a solution was found by doing the fork as a last resort) this is not the problem we are addressing now and to me is closed and resolved, if Paddu still needs any satisfaction or feels that it was treated wrongly as you state, I'll be happy now, to spend all the time he wants on that topic. I have said that at that time to him and it is still true, that I hate to debate every point or be dragged to this sort of discussions. I now seem unable to avoid, not only to defend my POV, but the work I have done and even the future of Wikibooks, so I have now created some time to address this issues. --Panic 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Panic, your practice of moving around and reorganizing talk pages makes it rather difficult to look into the history. Your are not my full time job.


 * There are more administrators that could help if you feel it is that important, I see the matter of the fork and even the forced merge closed, I have and even Paddu have some grievances not with each other (at least I don't have regarding him, as I'm almost on is shoes now) but by the ways the subject was treated at the time by the Wikibooks community and I with the administrator that forced the merge. But if you really need more info I can try to dig it out. --Panic 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There are other books that have communities around them (the cookbook being a prime example, but also wikijunior, the muggles guide, etc.). They didn't need policies or guidelines, just the implicit policy of collaboration, cooperation, and fellowship that comes naturally to a project where "anyone can edit". You don't collaborate, you impose. You don't cooperate, you argue. You treat your fellow contributors badly, and then point out proudly that you didn't just revert their contributions as "spam" (I take it you actually mean vandalism?)


 * There isn't a book community in the sense that they are not defined nor have the proper bases to reduce the scope of participation on decision that only and directly affect them (I think this should be stated in a policy), as I said before and I will say again implicit policies are bad, people aren't mind readers and probably just don't care to get the "feel" or "mindset" of the community as a whole, I didn't and that has caused me much trouble, my first intention was doing one or more books, not be involved in debates nor policy building.
 * Can you concretely state an instance that I have herr "impose"d my edit over anyone? That would help, txs...
 * if you understand that [cooperate == submit and go along with the flow] and [argue == defend my POV, where I or the work I've done here is involved] then expect less cooperation and more argues, if the rules for decisions here are to be trusted I can object to anything I don't agree to and I will do just that.
 * As for collaboration I have no problem with it, I have been collaborating with many users for most of the time I've spent here, if you wish to make a point do it...
 * You probably misunderstood the problem with the other user, I will copy form the other talk page just to same my time and yours...

part of the post I made in WB:OWN in 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC) The problem with the other user and the reason you blocked me and I again say wrongly doesn't have directly to do with reformatting or big changes, the problem was that the user in question made some changes that corrupted the logic of the text on that particular page, I recognized that the user was participating on the book (for some time) and did not want to interpret is actions as "spam" and asked him to correct the problem in a time frame or I would do it. (The validity or imposition is like saying to you; please call me in 10 minutes or I'll call you back), for this I was blocked for 2 weeks. (Well I was blocked twice for the same event)

''« You shouldn't try to impose "deadlines" on your fellow contributors. You are an equal partner, not a "chief editor" »'''


 * Under no active policy is giving a user a time frame to complete an action before one takes action/reaction a violation...

If you had done some group work or had a need to synchronize stuff under a collaborative framework (probably I as a programmer know this more that you) you need a way to check if you have control of a structure before you make changes to it.

The problem is bigger yet as the blocking action resulted on the monitor of a different conversation (on another unrelated user page) were I was explaining this problem, this violates my freedom of expression and even if your interpretation was correct, my point of view had the same value as yours, since I was talking to a third party on a private page, that is, by your action any person that disagrees with any policy can't talk about it or express the wish for changes (not the problem here but the final result is that).

Policies exists to be challenged and updated and express the community views on it and as it stands not even a majority has control on general policies. Users are all equal, you personal views, even if divergent from mine shouldn't influence your actions as an administrator.

More I have been an active contributor and participative on votes, policy creation/building and in the community in general, by being blocked I did not only become unable to continue working on the books I normally do, but could not express my vote on other subjects, and Darklama took that chance to impose his views on the book in question, the other user changed my signed posts on the talk page, etc...


 * If you can please address those points... --Panic 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You know Panic, I'd take your position on the "Author's Page" more seriously if you bothered to name the other authors. Last time I saw it, it was "Panic, and others...", which as far as I'm concerned was/is a rather more serious GFDL violation.


 * The insertion of ones name/alias as a book authors is defined on the GFDL no author should be included against their will, I have respected the GFDL. I can assure you that to my best knowledge this is not a violation, the (not seen) request (see source) could be a violation of other authors rights and is not based in any active policy on Wikibooks (at least not until book communities are defined), but that is another can of worm. --Panic 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I try to expect that you and Darklama are really working in good faith but the list of problems just keeps accumulating. --Panic 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to give people weblinks to the book, you'll either have to deal with the fact that it might be under construction, or just copy it to another site and give them that link instead...the GFDL gives you the right to do just that. Maybe some of the people you gave the links to will eventually come here and work on the book a bit, and if they do, I'll make sure that their contributions are welcomed and respected...even if that means blocking you again.


 * At this point in time I couldn't in good faith point Wikibooks for any constructive work and I would probably refrain to place it in evidence (I'm not obliged to do it, see Wikibooks GFDL Limitations) or to even point to Wikibooks. I sincerely hope that this discussion and the policies that are in the works would change my view, but if I don't feel good working on books as this are so I don't think that I would indicate it to anyone (at this point). --Panic 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect, you have so far failed to correct any action that violated the GFDL and were pointed out by me, or tried to force darklame and me to reach a consensus or even expressed you opinion even om behalf of darklama point of view (I even pointed out that consensus obtained on this bases are problematic).


 * Where, exactly, did he violate the GFDL?


 * Again ? see that page logs (print version of the herr alternative TOC) --Panic 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to see consensus as "your way". You might want to consider the possibility that since everyone seems to disagree with you, you might not be completely in the right.


 * No I don't see consensus on my side, it is sufficient to have you in disagreement with me to have that clear, but that doesn't resolve the situation as stated in the policies in case off failing to reach a consensus the status quo (before the changes under dispute) should be protected.


 * It is clear to me and should be to you that at least before the last changes darklama made to the book taking advantage of the block (I was expecting better from him), I and him were resolving the problems mostly OK (with some pending issues) until you intervened on a complete unrelated point and wrongly so, and you probably know it. --Panic 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You were blocked for the same reason in both cases: insisting that it is your right to tell others what to do. If you want to be welcomed and listened to as a member of the community, you're going to have to get over yourself and assume both the good faith and the competence of your fellows. -- SB_Johnny | talk 02:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Try to read the above transcript on that point (the blocking), as for the welcome I sincerely don't particularly need and don't have time to build a contact network here (I know it makes life easier but that should not be a requirement to be able to work here) as for the to be listened part, it only suffices to have an account to have a voice. The good faith I had in you and darklama after the last actions it is running very low.--Panic 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The only way it's going to get resolved is if you talk to your fellow contributors, addressing them as equals. If you are unable to do that, then staying out of it is probably a good idea. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Geezz, what have I being doing since darklama stated to change the book ?!? I never did one revert on his changes (and some should have been reverted), we know where each other stands and wants and were working our way around eachother. --Panic 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

We're done talking now
Please try to get along with others, and heed the warnings I have given you. You don't have control over the content of C++ or any other wikibook on this project. Filibustering WB:OWN will get you nowhere either. -- SB_Johnny | talk 04:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And so I will do what is in my right to do, move things as they were (or near as possible) before the disputes arose...
 * This will be my first reverts of the changes done to the structure I will leave the "book" in itself to the last and will only restore the supporting talk pages to the previous structure --Panic 17:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

= Thanks =

I know there have been a lot of commotion lately, Panic. Thank you for your example, especially at the heat of the fire, of civility and conviction. You are a good example of a dedicated editor. Thank you! &mdash; User:Iamunknown 08:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

= C++ Wikibook and other related issues =

I will admit that I didn't get involved with the decision making process of the C++ fork/merger that happened. In some ways, I felt kinda pushed to the side and didn't want to get caught in the middle of a brawl that I knew instinctively was going to get ugly before it got resolved.


 * I share your views, I don't particularly like to be involved in discussions and I'm only doing so because the same thing seems to happen time and time again, against policies or without them, based only in personal interpretations and leaving no solution opened to the normal user. --Panic 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I think you had some valid points in the discussions, and perhaps I should have taken a stronger interest in what was going on.


 * Well I may have expressed something in not the exact way I intended to, but most of my action are with good intentions I refute any and all accusations to the contrary, it was my respect for Paddu POV and even lets call it by their right names here, editorial control he was not contributing to the book at the time (content) but he did write some at the beginning so my action that lead to the creation of another book on C++ was mostly a result of the inability for Paddu to compromise with my POV an no moderation came to clarify thing, I was relatively new at Wikibooks and as I said before I never contributed directly to Wikipedia, the solution at the time solved the problem, didn't break any existing rules and did enable me to continue to provide content on a book that was as continued stale.--Panic 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I do hold that the GFDL in this situation (particularly for forking policies and such) is irrelevant and damaging to the conversation. This has nothing to do with the GFDL, but instead is about a surprisingly arbitrary "forking policy" that exists here on Wikibooks. And for the record, this is one that I don't agree with 100%, particularly as I do believe that you can write some very substantially different "books" about the same topic. You can still maintain an NPOV but writing from two different (or more) approaches to the topic. This is indeed why most scholarly papers require multiple sources, because there isn't always one way to approach a topic to completely understand it.


 * I don't think it is irrelevant, there are thing one must comply to, like naming the original work (I see many page moves between book that fail to do even that), this is a imposition of the GFDL, and the GFDL lets us as a community after the "forks" or other similar work are created to merge them in the future without conflict if they stop to evolve. --Panic 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As it is, I'm getting ready to fork one particular Wikibooks precisely because there is a very different viewpoint and attitude toward how to approach the topic (AP Computer Science) than what the main group of authors want to do with it. Imagine, forking a stub.....


 * I believe that this should be acceptable, it may be confusing to the readers but some rules can be crafted that would reduce it, the ratio of readers and authors is very unbalanced, we should foster author in any case. --Panic 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You and I aren't really as far apart on these issues as you seemed to try and indicate on Wikibooks talk:Ownership. And you are completely correct that Wikipedia and Wikibooks are two very different sorts of projects where the rationale for doing things on Wikipedia doesn't always seem to apply here.


 * I think we are in accord in the major points, one the ones that I don't agree strongly is anonymous authors and the need to protect authors moral right but a clear fork policy would solve the later. --Panic 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point to a discussion I had some time ago on Talk:Serial Programming where I got into a heated discussion by one user who thought I was exerting too much editorial control over a book I started and created. In some ways I think that book writing really is restricted to just a small handful of people who have some sort of demon inside of them that demands that the book be written. This is precisely why Wikibooks has a much smaller community than Wikipedia, IMHO. --Rob Horning 21:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pushing for the definition of a book community, there seems to have a unwritten recognition of that (or a similar reduction of the scope of influence of the general community in specific project management, see comments above), I'll read the indicated discussion now, txs for you input. --Panic 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

= here we go again. =

You are blocked again. You can edit this page... I'm listening. -- SB_Johnny | talk 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I merely fixed what I considered to be damage that you have caused by trying to force a rigged and unnatural method from which discussions normally take place and others people seem to welcome the changes. You may have the right to make changes and voice your opinion, but as you seem to keep forgetting, you don't have the right to prevent others from contributing changes and continiousally attempting to do things in an attempt to have your way with everything. Everyone is not simply editors working under your approval. You have not given me any reason to expect better than this from you. Your actions seem to always be an attempt to delay any progress that could be made and a constant attempt to get everyone nowhere. I agree with both SB_Johnny's previous decisions and current decision to block you. Frankly I don't know why you don't get blocked longer. --dark lama  22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To fix something something must be broken, it is my view that it wasn't, it is your right to propose changes (not impose them) besides that point the structures that you seem to disagree with weren't created by me, with my agreement it was an imposition of an adminitrator at the time of the merge, I merely continue its use and have extended it a little bit... but I don't see the changes you made as a better solution and you knew that. Btw talk page structure is not in itself a contributions to a work, they are Wikibooks modules that in it self isn't referenced as the work as I told you. --Panic 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

((unblock|not a valid block, no formal policy or behavior guideline was broken, more this is the third time I'm wrongly blocked I also propose that administrative flag to be removed from User:SBJohnny. ))

May I suggest that we get at least one neutral arbitrator (not from the arbitrators from w:WP:RFAR as they are too busy) in here from Wikipedia? I would also encourage (if everyone agrees to arbitration) that the arbitrators' decisions be binding, enforceable by blocking, etc &mdash; User:Iamunknown 00:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the topic of the proposed arbitration ? What is the reason for the block ? Are they the same ? What are the rules proposed for the arbitration, were are they defined ? --Panic 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The topic and rules of the proposed arbitration would be whatever the involved parties agree upon. I can neither answer nor decline to answer your second and third questions as I am not the blocking admin &mdash; User:Iamunknown 00:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An arbitrator for an arbitration? Doesn't really make sense to me. I think if the majority agree with the decision to block, that should be enough. I think SB_Johnny's arbitrator decisions should be binding and enforced as he has been doing. I disagree with the idea of someone from Wikipedia doing it, simply because they are unlikely to know anything about the culture of Wikibooks and understand how things are here. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 01:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion Iamunknown. I think we should wait for other users' thoughts before we take that step as if the majority agree with SBJohhny's decision then there will be no need for arbitration. Xania talk 00:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't agree with any arbitration until all the above questions are answered, and I particularly dislike your proposed vote by a majority what decission bases would it use ? --Panic 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there is not a set-in-stone policy or guideline concerning blocks and unblock-requests. There apparently needs to be. I personally would consider, however, a consensus among the administrators about the legitimacy of the block to be an appropriate "proposed vote by a majority." There does, as you point out, need to be a clear and detailed justification upon which for them (the administrators) to base their decision &mdash; User:Iamunknown 00:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't a partially (since it seems very vague) definition of a justifiable blocking exist in Administrators, I clearly don't fit the description as I'm clearly not here to make trouble (what does trouble mean in such a vague context), in any case the undefined reason for the block justifies for it to be lifted. --Panic 01:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Panic, you are blocked because you started moving talk pages around (actually it was more like "re-moving" them), as you were warned not to do. I left notice of the block on WB:AN and on Robert's page, so everyone knows. You'll have your review, and I'll abide by any decision made by the next arbitrator. I'm not happy about this either, but until another arbitrator steps up, we're stuck with each other. -- SB_Johnny | talk 01:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I started restoring wrongly moved pages to their previous location, you as the administrator that wrongly blocked me last time permitted that contested changes to be made, you lost any credibility to me after pointing out this policy as a solution and you last action as can be read above, is the Talk is over just shows how you go about solving problems, my last resort was to BY POLICY restore the pages to the previous state before the dispute, I informed you and the other user that I was doing it and only to the affected talk pages so to prevent more confusion to the other contributors that were in the least affected by your lacking of action in preventing the changes in the first place and probably only validated them by the previous block, as Wikimedia states in MediaWiki Administrator's Handbook/User Block a block should be a last resort, User blocking is perhaps one of the most heavy-handed things you can do as an administrator, and the one that can cause the most damage, you are still failing to base you blocking action in any valid violation I have committed. --Panic 01:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you refute any responsibility on the actions, inactions or consequences I present above? Can you truly base your claim that I violated any policy or guideline ? --Panic 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Another point, I can't remember that warning, if you did give it in such a explicit way, had I seen it, I would strongly object to it as it is against actual policy (you can even now read, now outdated I expect, comments of other administrators that defend that failing to reach agreement, restoration of the changes is best). --Panic 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out Panic has been warned on many occations, here is 3 I was able to find from quick look: --dark lama  02:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) warning #1
 * 2) warning #2
 * 3) warning #3


 * Have you ever been warned or blocked for the real violations you committed User:Darklama, do you still need me to enumerate them again ? Don't you even admit on doing something that was "probably wrong" were your actions performed on the last "timout" I was imposed so clean, think about it... --Panic 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway as an addendum to the help you are providing on pointing out the warnings, one must say that each warning relates to the block it generates (a Warning is the interpretation of the administrator of the breaking of the policies/guidelines, a thing I claim he can't prove and hasn't done yet), the purpose of the warnings are to give a chance for the offending user to change it's actions (since I wasn't doing anything wrong my actions didn't really needed changing). --Panic 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I also take this chance to report that when a blocked user tries to edit a page, a blocking warning is displayed that states that ''You can add the Template to your user discussion page in order to request unblocking. '' This should be corrected. --Panic 01:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, we'll look into that.-- SB_Johnny | talk 01:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I think everyone needs to take a break for the evening so that people don't write angrily. I'd prefer an "arbitration committee," perhaps formally created after this, to be made up of Wikibooks users only that can look over this tomorrow (and by tomorrow I mean that it's now 10PM EST). -within focus 03:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've largely stayed out of this fight, and for now, I'm willing to act as a mediator if you, Panic, are willing to have me review this situation. I'm willing to try and dig up a few otherwise neutral admins to act as a "tribunal" if you don't want to have me do this explicitly.

Unfortunately it has gone to this point where a very formal procedure must be invoked to get this to work out, and that means essentially all of the BS that involves something akin to a court trial or arbitration case on Wikipedia. While there is no "policy" on doing this, I think we have reached the point that this is going to establish a preceedent here on Wikibooks on how to resolve these seemingly intractable problems.

If you don't like the decision that we have made after this whole process, you are certainly free to send it up for "appeal" to the WMF board of trustees or a group of stewards for final review. In the past, User:Jimbo Wales has usually been the ultimate authority in situations like this. Trust me when I say this, but you don't want that to happen except as a very last resort, Panic. Don't force this issue that far, as you are very likely to lose and be permaently blocked from all Wikimedia projects.

What I'm suggesting here is that a full airing of all of the issues be brought out, including by those who have become involved. Be very specific and explicit. While I've seen some talk about this, the "warnings" listed above are not IMHO sufficient information to really come to a conclusion about what has happened.

It should also be noted that this is going to take some time to completely air all of the issues out, including a forum for Panic here to offer rebuttals. What I don't want to see happen here is a drag out mess that will not see an end. Here is my strong suggestion, and invoking my administrator hat, I may even force it here:

There will be a four part discussion/airing of the issues. Those discussions will happen in the following format:


 * 1) Plaintiff charges of improper conduct on the part of Panic with regards to Wikibooks. Be very specific and cite examples.  Since User:SB Johnny has gone through the effort to perform the user block, I'm going to encourage him and those who feel the same way that Panic has been abusive on Wikibooks to join into that discussion.  Panic is not allowed to comment directly on the pages where these "charges" are found.
 * 2) Defendant reply. Panic is invited to respond to the charges and try to explain his position, and defend his actions on Wikibooks.  This is not intended to be a free-for-all discussion, but rather a clear defense situation that only those who are sympathetic to Panic are generally permitted to add content with this reply.
 * 3) Plaintiff rebuttal. - This is a response to the discussion done by the defendant.
 * 4) Defendant rebuttal. - A final thought and word by the defendant.

Each of these steps will happen in successive order. Generally speaking, they shouldn't last more than a few days each, but I'm willing to extend them a few days, particularly giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt. The whole point of formalizing this is to avoid the 16-level deep intented discussions commonly found on places like the VfD pages, and to give a chance to air out all of the issues in a calm manner.

Until one step has been completed, the next step can't begin.

When all of this is done, a similar series of discussions will occur regarding what sorts of actions ought to be done, including perhaps as Panic has said, the deadmining of SB Johnny. We can air out that issue within Wikibooks, but it certainly may be something in this case. Or you, Panic, may be permanetly blocked from Wikibooks including sock puppets.

If you don't want to get this formal, fine. But at that point I can wash my hands of this whole thing. And I promise to everybody involved that this is going to get ugly unless we do a formal process like this. In addition, if this process isn't done properly, people from outside of Wikibooks will decide our fate. I don't want that, and I certainly hope that you, Panic, don't want to see that happen either. While I can't "force" this to happen, I hope this will be a reasonable solution before we block your account permanently. I don't want to do that, nor do I think most of those involved here with Wikibooks want to see that either.

I've started an arbitration page for Wikibooks here: Arbitration

Obviously for now, Panic is going to be restricted to this user talk page. I'm willing to even "unblock" you if you promise to keep a comparatively low profile for the next couple of weeks and not try to edit in pages that are currently under conflict. Let's try to cool down the pot and try to see exactly what has been going on. This can be rationally done, and the reason why I've listed the steps is to let you know how I would be willing to moderate this issue. I know this isn't policy, but please try to follow this process, as I think it will help everybody involved, including yourself.

The next step is yours, Panic. Do you acccept this procedure for mediation, or do we take it up to the next level? --Rob Horning 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that doing that would probably resolve for a time any misconception, wrong doing, policy violations and other things that has been performed or acted upon by me and others involved,.

But your proposal is in my view excessive and overcomplicated, and will probably not address the problem in the table and take too long, and basically we don't have no written policies or guidelines to some of the previous issues, but I'm wiling to get into a similar procedure as described if we (as in me and User:SBJohnny) agree in a by point decision on the various problems.

The problem that must be address now is:
 * 1) Was this a valid block ?
 * Who? - User:SBJohnny and User:Panic2k4)
 * How? - User:SBJohnny blocked User:Panic2k4, User:Panic2k4 also indicates that the block reason was not properly stated to him at the time and on the block log registry.
 * Why? - User User:SBJohnny alleges that in sequence of a previous warning not to do so, User:Panic2k4 did perform a violation of policy or guideline, in specific by restoring pages to their previous locations due to changes made by another user, User:Panic2k4 in sequence of the block requested that the same would be lifted, if User:SBJohnny doesn't provide a valid reason to justify his actions.


 * No more no less there aren't any more involved parties, as they say User:SBJohnny has the ball.


 * If User:SBJohnny is unable to justify his actions I don't see how complicating the problem will help.


 * Any other standing problems should only be analyzed if used as a justification for the block, but I'm pretty sure that even the now present reason for the block and the existence of the warning would by themselves invalidate the block, the next problem to be addressed is my proposal to remove the users administrative rights and I can prove that as an administrator he should have performed better (maybe not to the point to remove his administrative flag, but at least for the cleanup of my blocking log and an admonition to him and probably some limitation to his involvement in blocking other users without a second administrator agreement, something on those lines), but this is not the time to debate those issues.

As for the block, if it is lifted I give my word that I will not not move or edit or in any way alter to the now indicated pages on that specific book namespace, but I ask that the other users are also requested for the same restrictions for the same amount of time, and that this time should be as short as possible. (This will of course have to include User:Darklama as he was the reason behind the restoration I performed). --Panic 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What I don't want to do is turn this into further wheel warring and worse. Action has been taken here, and it is in part to resolve these actions that I want to go through this process.  I know this seems abusive and complicated, and some of this is to remind people that we are taking extraordinary steps here.  This is also to put you, Panic, on an equal footing with SB Johnny and not have to face an imbalance due to dealing with an administrator.


 * I'll try to make the appropriate announcements at various places to let people in general know what is going on.


 * I've started Arbitration/Panic2k4 vs. SBJohnny/Plaintiff Charges which is where the first round of this arbitration is going to start. --Rob Horning 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully support unblocking on the basis outlined above by Rob Horning -- Herby talk thyme 18:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is simplistic to suggest that this only involves Johnny & Panic. Darklama's name should be included in this -- Herby  talk thyme 20:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I used Johnny's name only because he is the only one who has taken administrator actions against Panic in this situation. I think it is unfair to say this is Panic vs. Wikibooks as well, however.  There certainly are several individuals who feel wronged by Panic that has led to this current situation, which is what this is supposed to try and resolve.  BTW, if you want to change the name of this "case", feel free to come up with a better name, but let's not belabor this point too much.  Not everybody on Wikibooks is here fighting against Panic.  --Rob Horning 20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this arbitration will take a direct approach which truly is between Johnny and Panic. Darklama's actions were somewhat indirect and will be covered in the discussion. -within focus 22:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will not be seen as "fighting" anyone at this time. It is not my approach, leaning or anything else (tho I certainly will if I feel it necessary) -- Herby  talk thyme 20:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * After reading all of today's comments I'm still unsure what will happen next? Are you asking us for our opinions about whether this block should remain?  If that's the case then it's my opinion that Panic2k4 should be unblocked.  Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the course of action is to wait until the proper stage of the arbitration. You will be able to share your views and comments in what looks like stages three and four. In the meantime, I am going to build up the arbitration page and take this to the next level of creating an official process. After this first arbitration we can then talk policy in regards to making this process "the rule." I also plan on not being as insane as Wikipedia in regards to all the bureaucracy. -within focus 22:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that now. I was just confused by all the different suggestions and discussions and thought that arbitration had been ruled out.  I am back in the land of the living now and will wait to see how arbitration turns out. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that this whole process is going to set a very bad precedent, and the longer I think about it, the angrier I become. The fact is that an administrator (a long-time, trusted admin with a long record of being helpful) took action to solve a problem, and I don't think that we should get into the habit of second-guessing the decisions of our admins, especially if it isn't blatant abuse. What Johnny did was to block a problem user after multiple complaints, and multiple warnings. The dispute between Panic and Darklama has already been through an arbitration-like discussion process on this very talk page, and still Panic was unable or unwilling to collaborate. How many times to we need to dredge up the dirt? How many times to we need to make a decision on this? Johnny took the action that he thought appropriate, and Panic is lucky that Johnny did the blocking, because there are other admins here who would gladly have blocked Panic for a much longer span of time if they had to. I think that it is a bad precedent to second-guess our trusted admins (barring flagrant abuse, which this is not), and I also think it's a bad idea to drag out all our decisions into a long "judicial" process. Admins on wikibooks have traditionally been encouraged to be bold, and to take action for the betterment of the project. Johnny did this, and I dont think we should punish him for it. I would like to see this arbitration process ended, I would like to see Panic reblocked to serve out the rest of his term, or else warrned strongly that the next abuse on his part will lead to an infinite block from this project without hope of return. This whole process is a very bad idea, and I think it's going to get much more ugly then if we had stood by the original decision of the blocking admin. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That what should be resolved must be resolved, there is no avoidance, if you don't address problems when they are clear and hide your head under the sand, they will only get aggravated in the future by the errors committed in the past. --Panic 00:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should put such trust in administrators, like you seem to propose, since the rules to get the administrative rights at this moment are set "to low" as result of the lack of interested users (probably by the lack or experience and heavy use of unclear policies to define their action, I would like to be one at present, and there is a definition mistake most administrator aren't particularly interested in administrating the users, and most avoid actively to do so), for instance the other dispute I have with darklama (he is an administrator to) is on the simple interpretation of the GFDL (I think I have by now proven some point on that) and on the evolution of future policies (stuff that is not yet written but a significant part of the community seems to agree as it is a unwritten rule/policy, we have a collision of lets say interests). --Panic 00:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally am getting involved on giving a more clear definition (other users should also) to the actual policies and in open dialog to get approval or an evolution on my POV, I'm sorry it is in my nature to give word and defend my ideals, most users prefer to avoid confusion and conflict, while I don't like the later I will gladly get my hand dirty if the general community gets a benefit and in the long run it will. -Panic 00:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This block thing can be resolved and as I said is pretty easy, the blocking administrator is asked to provide validation for the block if he can't, it is removed (we aren't idiots here, if a clear warning was given like it is stated, I wouldn't have gone about blocking myself), as for the relations you establish and seem to use to justify the last block they aren't relevant, you can count on me to continue to put my finger where it hurts if I see something that should be improved/changed or deviated (I will not go after it actively but if I notice it I will point it out), what we do now will set a precedent (I already have done one of those, in the fork, sadly it didn't create nothing useful and it is still a time bomb we must defuse, but at least people are aware of it now) if it is bad or not will only depend on the community as a whole don't put that burden on me to. --Panic 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My point was that the issue already was resolved, there is no further resolution needed. You were blocked as a result of discussion and warning, and that is a resolution. That we have to suffer a whole arbitration process, and possibly the permanent establishment of a grand arbitration committee is considerably worse for the community then the loss of a single user who, through "confusion and conflict" has upset a number of people. "Conflict" is much less valuable in all respects then "collaboration" is.
 * As to your last point, you were given a number of warnings about your behavior from a number of sources (myself included), that you chose to ignore. you were blocked because you continued your behavior in spite of those warnings. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that it was SB Johnny who notified me on my user talk page that this issue had even come up, and sought me out to help arbitrate this situation. What is going on now is that I laid out some ground rules regarding how I would be willing to handle the situation if I was requested to step into the dispute.  I will also note that I have had a very difficult time trying to see specific points that everybody seems to be complaining about, which is another reason I have put together this arbitration in the current format.  Having avoided the C++ Programming Wikibooks completely with all of the issues that have surrounded it, I have been perhaps ignorant of all of the issues involved here.  Reading talk pages (even archived talk pages), looking over recent history edits and page move logs, I see at first glance on the part of Panic to be normal editing with the usual friction with people who all have large egos.  Now that was what I saw at first glance, but since Johnny certainly has been respected from my opinion as well, it seemed to be a drastic step to try and block this account.  Apparently the issues are qutie deep, but I want them aired out.  There is no way possible for an outside arbitrator like Anthere to come here and be able to sort this out if I can't do that.... knowing Wikibooks policies and trying to find out the background on this.


 * BTW, I'm trying to also maintain some sembalence of impartiality here. It is hardly easy given this context, and I have turned down requests that would have IMHO destroyed that impartiality.  I have tried to defend why I decided to lay down this course of action in this current format, but I'm trying hard not to comment on specifics here, or to form an opinion until all of the information is out in the open.  I'll also point out that one of the reasons why this whole thing is going on is in part because not everybody is 100% correct and 100% innocent for all that transpired.  Just like normal civil judicial proceedings, BTW.  I don't know how my uncle deals with all that BS, as he is a judge in California dealing with this stuff every day.  --Rob Horning 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see how you define, conflict if it is A state of disharmony between incompatible ideas, or interests. between me and darklama then we are both guilty (this is the bases of any discussion, without divergence there is no discussion, but you fail to place that point aside, the problem on the table at preset is only the block. I agree with you that over complicating thing will serve no purpose, I'll ask again to have User:SBJohnny present us the specific warning I broke, and to base the blocking in any policy, I will gladly suffer the block if it was supported on those bases or if it would benefit the community. --Panic 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * }

Just checking in...
Hi Panic. What I thought Robert was going to do was just take over for me in mediating between you and your fellow C++ editors. I'm not exactly sure what he has in mind now, though it seems a bit complicated. We'll see where it goes, eh? -- SB_Johnny | talk 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I see it, he is addressing the disputed block, as you statements deal with a more complex sequence of events/actions as base for that last block, all your related actions will be reviewed as the ones I performed that you think were justification for the blocks.


 * Since other users took the chance to also vent some of their views, it is my wish he/we would after be able to address the other users comments and the still existing disputes with me and Darklama so to speed thing up.


 * I will address your views/declarations of the dispute after the closing of that part of the argumentation. If you have already stated you views on the block(s) subject please state as closed at end of your comment so he can pass the ball to me and I may reply. If you can ask directly or propose that Robert asks to the other users that placed supporting comments to close also, so thing may proceed.


 * As the for the result it is my view that we may expect it to lead to at least the renewal of my block or even a permanent ban if my actions are perceived by him as granting such solution, on the other hand if I prove that you were in error I expect my block log to be clean and a proper action to be performed to you, I will not propose that your rights as an administrator to be taken as it is to hash and in general you do perform a useful task at Wikibooks, but it is my view and I will try to prove that your performance on this subject in particular was not proper for an administrator or based in a clean and due process.


 * I don't know if we should be talking outside of the proceedings but I don't see that as a problem, but to avoid any more confusion you should address Robert on this subject until things are resolved. This is all as new to me as to you, we (the whole community) should not mess this up as in the future, if we do it right, it will serve as example to resolve similar problems. --Panic 02:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think something must be altered on the way things are proceeding you should ask for a clarification to be posted on our Arbitration page or even you may propose any change that you and me will have to agree upon and be seen as acceptable by Robert. --Panic 02:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I "closed" it. I talked to Robert about it a bit on his talk, but I think the current structure is "all we have" for now, and I agree it's better to just get it done quickly. We can talk about how to do it better next time afterwards. -- SB_Johnny | talk 14:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Argh!!! -- Panic, please stop insisting that people "close" their comments. This sort of thing is exactly what got you into trouble. Don't worry about what other people have to say or whether they're going to say more. If they want to say more, they will. You're already making me regret "formally closing" my comments, because there's really no reason for formally closing. Just say what you have to say, and if more stuff is brought up, you can edit to include a response to the new stuff. The thing that people don't like about your behavior is that you have a tendency to tell people how to behave. Relax!

Really: just say what you have to say. I (as in me, SB_Johnny) don't think you're a bad guy, you just have trouble understanding how your actions are seen by others. I've "known" you long enough that I understand that you don't mean to be offensive, and that you don't like being told that you're being offensive. Robert might not want to be bothered with that.

The first time I blocked you was for exactly this reason: telling other people what to do. In that case it was "if you dont do X, I will do Y". Now, you're essentially saying "if everyone doesn't do A (A="close comments"), I won't do B (B="respond"). I understand that the structure that's been set up seems very formal and "court-like", but it's really not. I (as in me, SB_Johnny) genuinely want to hear what you have to say (I probably won't agree with it, but that's not your problem).

Say what you have to say. I'm not "out to get you"... quite the contrary. Get it done, so we can move on. -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No sir, I can't provide my counter argumentation without the Arbiter recognizes that the first step is closed (as there was no indication of a time frame), the other users have now signed and if the last remaining open comment is closed their contribution the page will be blocked from editing if the arbiter so decides and I will then have the chance to reply, in any case you seem to have a problem differentiating between I asking and I forcing or making you do something (even if I did the last, I had no power to enforce it), you are responsible for all your actions, other people can't make you do things, they can trick you into doing things but ultimately the responsibility is yours, that's life. Since I see this last remark as counterproductive and as a new invitation to conflict, I'll ask you that you restrain your comments on how I behave or what I do for the examination that will fallow, you are free to edit the page until the arbiter closes the page and I'm informed that I can proceed.  --Panic 22:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Panic, you misunderstood me. This is partly my fault, because in the past few months one thing I've learned about you is that you frequently misunderstand people. Here's the scoop: So, what I said above was offered as advice... from one wikibookian to another. You've said (or at least hinted) that you're worried about maybe being permanently blocked. I'm worried about that too, because as much as you get on my nerves sometimes, I'd rather see this thing worked out to everyone's satisfaction rather than just having you "kicked out".
 * I am no longer involved in mediating your disputes with other users, and therefore you have nothing to fear from me.
 * You stated above that you are no longer interested in opening a "request for de-adminship" for me, and therefore I have nothing to fear from you.

So, despite the name of the arbitration ("Panic vs. SB_Johnny", which should really be "Panic vs. other parties, previously mediated by SB_Johnny"), let's just bury the hatchets and talk to each other once in a while. I can't be "on your side" as far as your dispute with the other editors goes (in fact I disagree with you totally), but I can be someone you can look to for advice as a neutral party. Again, I don't think you mean to come off the way you do: maybe in a cool moment you can explain it to me, and maybe I can help you explain it to others. -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I misunderstood you and I'm not particularly worried from the outcome but even after I modified my wish to request for your de-adminship, it still is up for the Arbiter to decide how it will end. I'm sorry if I did cause you some feeling of hunger or any kind of personal feeling toward me, it was not my intention and I think I never engaged you in any personal attack and never tried to "pick on you" nor other users, the only personal felling I have are only reserved for Darklama, and are more despair and mistrust and probably I did get into a moment of hunger that even during my problems with Paddu were kept in check, but I will vent it all out soon, I hope. As for the Arbitration, what is on the table is only my request for the removal of the block, it is up to the Arbiter to see if the other accusations are interlinked and must be addressed on this process, I will try to give some kind of response to the other users but some of the allegations are probably outside of the scope. I do have the feeling that it would be more useful if the Arbiter also provided some mediation for the other problems, I will request it but the other parties must first agree to be moderated on those topics. --Panic 00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On a specific point, I never did agree in your particular mediation on my divergences with Darklama, I and Darklama agreed and asked for comments from several administrators, some at the time some did state they weren't comfortable in discussing parts of the problem and most provided some gidelines and advises and even made requests and indicated some solutions. Before the first block and the copyvio problem you never indicated that you were taking personal responsibility to solve or address the problem and I see many of your action as single sided (but I will address them later). --Panic 00:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally out of the blue but...
Commons has a dire lack of administrators fluent in Portugese. Would you be willing to talk copyright problems with Portuguese? -- SB_Johnny | talk 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well as I said I'm not interested in getting involved in debates in general nor other Wiki projects, I did contribute to Wikibooks as a way to advance the C++ Project and start the P2P book, since I'm doing some personal development/research on those areas since 2001 and it was a way not only to share some knowledge but at the same time learn and get a broader information on the same issues, as a way not only to share any research but to get my own thoughts written down, that's why I chose the eng.wikibooks as the language makes it more useful to others, this are the limits of my wish to get involved, but txs for the offer. --Panic 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Arb thing
Hi Panic - seems like Rob Horning is not around at present. I'm sure you would agree that this needs sorting for all concerned. I understand Johnny to have completed his section so (as I understand it) is it back to you for Arbitration/Panic2k4 vs. SBJohnny/Defendant Rebuttal. I would like to stress that I have no wish to be involved, I would merely like to see it out of the way so feel free to ignore me if you would prefer . Regards -- Herby talk thyme 17:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup but the statement that validates that assertions is on the arbitrage page and it is not very clear the I'm done post, since other users did post comments on the accusation first part, they may still want to respond and I have placed several questions that they may wish to respond publicly and on the arbitration log, if it takes more than the time I have take to respond or was used on the first step we should contact Rob (I think I saw at least one post from him in the last days), it is only proper to give people some time, lets wait a bit more. Anyway Johnny can state more clear that he is finished and ask, since he is on the same side, if the others have anything to add (even you may ask, it wouldn't be proper for me to do that after Johnny post after I did it on the first round).--Panic 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken - I hadn't thought it thro - I'll stay away I think - regards -- Herby talk thyme 17:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being nosy and reading your talk page :P. I really want nothing more to do with it... if you want the others to hurry up and reply, ask them (or ask Robert to ask them). I didn't like the way the first round was done anyway, so perhaps if no-one else replies you can just finish up with Robert and see what comes next. You know where to find me on IRC if you want to chat (type "SB_Johnny" to ping me). -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Had to say
I LOVE the "atom bomb" metaphor - thanks -- Herby talk thyme 17:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

= Apologies =

I have removed the comment that you spoke about on the Wikibooks talk:Resolving disputes page. I did not intend to call you a bully, and I apologize that you took offense to it. Despite the current matters at hand, I do not view you as an enemy, and I don't want to insult you. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No prob. even if we don't agree on several matters I know you have good intentions and are defending you views on what you take as an important subject, but please try to extend the same regard to my actions, I'm fully aware that I'm fighting a uphill "battle" but until someone proves any wrong doing on my part I will continue fighting for what I think is right. --Panic 19:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have never doubted your intentions, I know you mean to do good things. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

= Disappointment with the user block =

I will say that the way that this arbitration has ended is a major disappointment to me. Whiteknight has openly suggested he will wheelwar with me over this if I try to reverse this action.

If you want to discuss this more directly, I would like to conduct any conversation via e-mail. Please contact me directly if you want to go anywhere further. --Rob Horning 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Rob, please take notice of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Redux#Wikibooks:Arbitration.2FPanic2k4_vs._SBJohnny, I have started action on what I think is right and just and good for the community a step above, please feel free to correct any affirmation or comment I make there, this is indeed a sad day to the community and the last block is another action that the involved parties should be ashamed, they didn't perform in the best interest of the community and it is clearly a simple way to shush me and escaped debate and examination of the event. I will avoid using other means of communication to provide the ability to any other user to be able to participate and comment on my actions and motivations, I think one of the top problems that lead us here is that extra channels of communication were used to spread misinformation, about me, my actions and even your attempt to provide a fair (even if difficult) solution to the problem, had the arbitration reached a similar or worse decision on my regard I would not object, but this seems even more grave that the initial assessment I made of the problem. --Panic 00:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Panic, please stop this eternal contest to try to "win" when the community has already voiced its opinions many times. You and I both have seen and know the community's take on this matter and if you truly care about anything here then you will stop this ridiculous battle. When you say things like this it makes you look even worse to the community. This issue has been examined so many times and just let it end. Come back in six months with a new attitude and respect for your fellow Wikibookians. Rob cannot reverse this and the Stewards have also refused. Please end all this. -within focus 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that is part of your "problem", there is no "win" situation here, we are all losing, but I more than others.
 * As for the community voicing its opinion I'm even unable to comment on that statement, you took action with very negative comments on the arbitration process, please read my first comment on your arbitration decision, it says it all. (Not all but sufficient to make you at least reconsider the step you took)
 * As an aside you should check your definition of arbitration, I saw your post on another page and an arbitration doesn't need to have community agreement or consensus nor even permission, an arbitration is started as soon as agreed by the parts involved.
 * I'm still considering what to do, but in your action you just increased the need for me to proceed, in NO WAY a block like the one you just performed has any validity, the problem now goes beyond the scope of the arbitration "you" derailed and your comment on it also states clearly how you regarded the efforts I and others took on it, more, by doing things as you did you even prevented SBJohnny to prove his point, I too did make negative assumptions against the user's actions that would need to be taken in consideration or at least cleared (If I were in his place, well I am, as being wrongly accused or under a dark light, would need a way to have my name cleared).
 * More and to let me know, did SBJohnny agreed with your actions and the six months time frame? Why not more or less ? What do you feel will/would change in that time frame ? What did you expect to "gain" or had as a goal by performing the block ?
 * If you can point me out how you can justify the six month block, I will consider leaving and to respect a similar decision but not this one and in the terms you stated your "solution" and not based on a the arbitration that you subverted. (Do read the block policy I provide a good analysis on the end part of my "argumentation".)
 * Failing to do that, I (and future users), will have gained nothing from your decision or my errors and I will probably be back and engage on the same actions that you see as breaking policy.
 * Any way I'm still open to admit any wrong doing, but its brilliant and probably a good sign that only I am able to commit errors. --Panic 03:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All the things you've mentioned above have already been answered and the solutions are clear-cut all around the project, therefore I won't be engaging you in any further discussion here. It's quite unfortunate that you won't concede the situation right now but by ending this conversation that pretty much does end this because this talk page is the only place left to discuss it by what you're allowed to edit. I guess Rob could continue to talk here but I don't believe others will. In six months we might talk again if you come back to the project, and with a new attitude I hope. -within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 05:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Panic, let me say from the start that I'm only replying here because I don't want one of your comments to go unanswered. Niether Whiteknight nor Withinfocus consulted me on this decision, and as far as I know it was not discussed on IRC. I made it clear a month ago that I wasn't going to be involved, and I haven't been, except for relating my understanding of the history of your problems with fellow editors, and prodding it along a bit because it was going on for too long (which wouldn't have been my problem if your friend Robert hadn't insisted on keeping me involved against my expressed wishes).

I don't necessarily agree with the block or the length of the block, but I trust Matt's judgment (and no, I don't talk to him outside of talk pages). I think you got into trouble because you just couldn't help but let your acerbic, sarcastic tendencies take over your comments on the arbitration (please remember that I had tried to point this out to you when I was offering to help you compose your "defendant's reply").

I know you're sincere, and I know you think you're in the right. The problem is that you don't do a good job expressing what you're sincere and (possibly) right about, and you're quite frankly abusive to your fellow contributors, whether you mean to be or not. I spent a lot of time and energy trying to help you understand how you were making other people so angry at you, but you didn't take it to heart. You say you respect your fellow conrtibutors, but just saying that doesn't mean much when you otherwise behave the way you do.

I really, sincerely wish there was some way of working this out that would involve your inclusion in the Wikibooks project as an active member. I will not (now or ever) volunteer to be an advocate for you, but if you can think of another way I can help you, please do. Just keep in mind that Matt is in charge, and he's a level-headed guy, and a guy who (in my experience) doesn't have a lot of tolerance for bullshit. Unblocking you merely requires the press of a button, but I don't think anyone will press that button unless you make a good solid case for doing so. -- SB_Johnny | talk 00:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that I said I would no longer comment here, but Johnny's comment has inspired me to extend a single path for a solution that I believe will be to your benefit. The above comment pretty effectively summarizes the main problem with your actions here: disrespect. So here's the process I'd like for you (and the community) to do:


 * Below all of my comments, write a full response about how you can adjust your attitude and how you will change your communication methods here. This includes how you will change your demeanor to better respect fellow contributors and gain community approval of your proposed actions on a book before you do them (i.e. how you will talk to users now, what you will change, and how you will ask C++ book contributors in a fair way about making changes to the book's content and structure).
 * Once you complete this in a not overly verbose manner, I will create a page that all community members at Wikibooks will be informed of via commonly visited channels here and can edit to discuss what specific lengths of time you should be blocked if at all. We will gather community ideas about the "punishment" matter. This page will be open for two weeks and your current block will still be in effect.
 * Using that community discussion I will adjust the block (or remove it) based on the community's will.


 * Since you are the only person involved in writing this, I don't believe the community needs to approve this process. The actual action will be between you and me and I will adjust my block based on it. I originally planned for you to develop these ideas yourself privately over the next six months but am offering for you to do it now (and you must of course follow them or you will be blocked again based on our new procedures here once they're developed). -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 00:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, to SBJohnny post I have already stated what I think happened and extracted many suppositions to justify it's actions and the why of all this mess this are all on the "arbitration log", I understand we (me and SBJohnny) don't share many views on too many subjects and I'm pretty sure I could list them all with a very low level of error but the one that brought us (the "active" part of the community) to this situation is that administrative actions were taken without proper proceedings and regards to the damage it caused, no more no less, this is not even about if I have or not broken any policy, it is plain to anyone that has spent a second fallowing what has been happening that no try has been made to solve any of the so called abuses or justifications for action with dialog, this of course not taking in consideration that the actions used to justify the blocks are not the ones the block action addressed), I have in the past given SBJohnny the chance to discuss or point out my errors or admit his own errors, the third block that drove me to here shows how the block decission is being abused and the taking over of the arbitration by another and non approved arbiter and his final "solution" just reinforces that abusive use and establish a very dangerous precedent on Wikibooks.


 * As for the tone of the first part of my contribution to the arbitration I grant you that some of it may have sarcastic nuances but I have been very careful not to be caustic or disrespectful, I can only face this mess with a sense of humor and taking some personal enjoyment on the time I may be wasting, but taking in consideration your comment on your response I stopped it, no more puns were used on the second part, in no way can my attempt on providing the readers (and the writer) with a more creative text an attempt to disrespect you or the proceeding, and I have clearly stated so on the same text.


 * If I don't take this all with a grain of salt and happy face and hoping the best of others, I would have left or been indeed uncivilized regarding some actions.


 * I also now share many of Xixtas dreads in regard to the existence of a clique of administrators and I know that ANY solution that will be reached will not fully address my aspirations. There is an uncommon and annoying coincidence of actions and timings and positions that goes beyond a free flow of information and decisions on a social network, even all well intentions of the world can't justify some of the events we have witnessed. Well, I'm a bit paranoid my nick is Panic...


 * To User talk:Withinfocus, I must only repeat what I have said to Whiteknight and point yet again to the first reply to your solution as is stated in Arbitration/Panic2k4 vs. SBJohnny/Arbitrator Actions (moved to) Wikibooks talk:Arbitration/Panic2k4 vs. SBJohnny/Arbitrator Actions, as I have said in response for the first attempt of Whiteknight to end the arbitration [here], and as I stated somewhere above I don't recognize to you User talk:Withinfocus the right to judge me or the capability to cast an independent analysis starting by pointing out the unlawful action that has gotten me again blocked under a unjustified claim since you could not under any circumstance have substituted the original arbiter, you are free and able to provide any of your interpretation of the events as are all users, but I find it strange that no one uses facts to base the claims they make...


 * What I'm aiming is clear, I want to understand what I did wrong and if not found guilty I want my block log cleared, you are free to analise the now clear and finished argumentation on the arbitration, but it would be a show of fairness to 1) remove this last block 2) remove the same block from my log 3) enable the first arbiter if he wishes so to finish his analysis and then comment on it as was intended, this would indeed be constructive and address the community problems, I will respect any decision taken on those terms, failing that, may next move if I so decide is to request the unblock of your last block and I think it is clear to you now that you will have no justification to it.


 * I must ask you one other thing as you have refused to reply in the past I will understand if you also don't reply now. Did I ever been uncivil to you ? Have you really read as you said "my ramblings" on the arbitration ? Do you still claim that there was bad intention or that I have broken any policy after examining the FACTS ? --Panic 02:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You being uncivil to me is not part of the block, but your writing has been as stubborn and disrespectful as always. However, you were not nearly as offensive to me as you were to the C++ book-writers. I've read what you wrote and found it to be the same old soapbox, going nowhere and saying the same things over and over again about how you think you didn't really violate any policies here when I can't believe how you don't realize how in the wrong you are. My stance is exactly the same and I KNOW from FACTS that you acted in an uncivil manner. Nothing has changed! I can't get trapped into another round of semantics with you though (you're repeating yourself when nothing new has been brought to the table), so the chance to solve some of this has been revoked and the block will stay for six months. You denying this opportunity is quite unfortunate. This will truly be my last comment here. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 03:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With all fairness I don't think I'm being stubborn and disrespectful, I clearly don't see how you could expect me to agree with you proposal [last change] this is akin to the inquisitorial times on trowing a accused witch bound to a lake and expect her to fly if innocent, I would have the same chances. I do not need to recant to save my soul, I take the 5th as I wouldn't know what to admit to.  --Panic 03:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Trying to explain
Panic, a good place for you to start might be to explain, in your words, why people are so angry at you. Not who's right or wrong, but why they're angry. -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Who am I to understand or comprehend other peoples motivations, I don't know no one did not engage no one in a more close relation, I know that some people do know others more closely as I have pointed it out to you, I know only of my motivations, I don't see how any action I have performed could be used to justify such campaign nor I assure you was that my motivation, as for your own motivations I have expressed some of my rational on the arbitration and it wouldn't benefit no one to repeat them here as they are without concrete facts and based only on my interpretation of the events, I extend to you the respect some others didn't provide me. --Panic 19:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, please explain -- as you understand it -- why people say they have a hard time working with you. I really don't think you'll be unblocked unless you can make a commitment to at least try not to cause trouble, and I have a hard time seeing how you can make such a commitment without first making it clear that you know why people have such a hard time working with you. I'm not trying to do you any harm here, Panic... I'm really trying to help. -- SB_Johnny | talk 19:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That again is also a overstatement, there are no other people there is only one and that one is not you, so please don't try to seem now interested on discussing an issue that you in the past decided as closed and has led us into this path, you and others have all my statements as part of the arbitration. If debate was wanted no block would have been needed. --Panic 19:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to talk to you now. If you don't want to talk, that's fine, but until you answer that question, I will oppose your unblocking. It's not an unreasonable request, Panic: whether you intended to or not, you've caused some serious problems, and you're not going to get out of this by stonewalling. Answer the question, and we can talk more after you do. -- SB_Johnny | talk 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do state what problems I have caused (an with proper suport of facts) this last post [here] from Whiteknight clearly states the core of the problem, I will not point to any of my actions as wrong as I commit no wrong on all this, up till now all active parts on the accusation failed to point to a concrete event or fact that would need that I would be corrected, if you have problems basing the accusation how can I agree or deny something that isn't there ?!?
 * More and I ask you this as I have asked Whiteknight and he failed to reply, to you this may be a trick question, but here goes, do you thinks a summary block is warranted (that is with no express warning or extra information), taking in consideration the block policy any time a user is uncivil (in generic terms) ? --Panic 20:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And here we are at the beginning again :). I'm not asking you whether you were right or wrong. I asked you what it was that you did to make people so angry. This isn't about right or wrong, its about being able to work with others. Right now I am trying to work with you to come up with a solution to this that doesn't involve you being blocked. I'm not here as a mediator or an arbitrator now, I'm just here as the only person who knows you a bit and is also neutral when it comes to the C++ book. Please try again. -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The burden of prof is with the accusation, I don't have to admit to anything as I'm innocent until proven guilty this is a core rule to any proceedings to attribute blame.

Facts:
 * 1) Withinfocus violated the decision policy, the block policy and in interfering on the arbitration and with his final comments he made on the proceedings the be civil policy, his actions did not only aggravated a perceived problem to the community they were against the spirit of the project. (if you want a by point analysis I will provide but not on my talk page)
 * 2) SBJohnny broke the block policy several times and came very near to performing personal attacks, and engaged in actions that caused great harm to another user of Wikibooks (facts are stated on the arbitration logs, no further info is needed)

Both users are administrators that should have a better understanding of the rules and needs of the Wikibooks project, at this moment I have no problems with any other user, there are still some disputed edits of Darklama that I will address later if indeed possible, they also broke policy as they were an abuse of the be bold guideline as several administrators have agreed.

The time for you to have addressed your actions SBJohnny has passed and is part of the arbitration logs.

Indeed our talk is over as clearly stated in the past, and if we are here is because of your refusal to address policy violation by another user and probably having misconceptions about me. I clearly refuse your assessment of the problem until you yourself admit to wrong doing [Your suggestion] does't have any value as all the burden is given to me for actions I was not responsible, and doesn't address the above stated violations, or corrects my block logs and restores my reputation. --Panic 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Panic, I'm not interested in addressing my actions, and I'm not concerned whether or not you agree to what I've suggested. My suggestion to Matt (and everyone else) is nothing more than common sense: you must acknolwedge how you have gotten yourself into this situation, agree to stop doing the things that you do that have been causing so many problems over the years, and understand that if you continue to cause problems, you won't be given the opportunity to cause them further.
 * You've got a few people that might seem to be taking your side, but you really don't know what solution they would come up with in the end. The only person trying to help you right now is me... the others don't know you, and are fighting for your rights on principle. Whether you accept it or not, I'm the only real friend you have right now on Wikibooks, and I really don't care if you accept me or not.
 * I'll keep trying to help you as long as you keep responding, and at this point the best way I can help you is to just keep asking you the same question: why do you think other people have such a hard time working with you? -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Request
You have requested that your block be lifted. I would happily do this as I believe the blocking was unfair but if I did this I'm sure such a move would just be reversed. I think it's time that people publically (rather than on IRC) stated if they're happy with Panic's block and the severity of it. Xania talk 22:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have asked this several times and for pedagogic purposes would ask again and this time to User:Whiteknight to provide links (no transcripts required) or the keywords to any of the times I have been "uncivilized" on my posting, I make only a request that he takes in consideration only the timeframe and if possible posts related to any of the blocks used on my account or posts that are were made after a clear warning that I was being uncivil and requested I corrected my posture relating to a specific post.
 * And ask again if User:Whiteknight thinks a summary block is warranted (that is with no express warning or extra information), taking in consideration the block policy any time a user is uncivil (in generic terms) ? --Panic 05:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that you have been "uncivil", I am saying that some people think you are uncivil. Whether you deserve it or not, you have a reputation for not being nice to people, and if this is wrong, you need to take steps to correct it. I am not responsible for the way people think of you, I am only telling you what needs to be done to fix the problem. be extra nice, so that nobody makes a mistake about you in the future. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand your part in this and mostly on recent events, you say you don't know of facts but you are willing to validate, repeat accusations and support mob tactics, unlawful decisions and even create and foment or aggravate problems that would lead to a split of the community (and all the community if I was a more belligerent foe) based on what others think ?!?!?, gezz --Panic 20:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to find a solution to the problem, while not getting angry or upset. I'm not saying what I do or do not know, I am asking for your opinions on the matter. I'm not talking about specifics anymore, all those things were already stated in the arbitration pages, and I don't feel I need to repeat any of it (especially since you don't agree with any of it anyway). If you want to solve the problem, and get back to wikibooks, then we can work on it. If you do not want to solve the problem, then deny everything and be argumentative. Either way, it's your decision. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

You just said that I wasn't the problem, the problem is what other people think of me, right? You, yourself engaged in actions to further promote that view but, you say you have no facts, isn't that also correct? What the problem was is or will be is this people fail to address the subject matter, this last block is unquestionable abusive, no one can even claim otherwise with a strait face, the block the SBJohnny performed were also abusive and badly formalized but, as you said, this is now part of the arbitration logs.

I (or anyone else) are not required to be nice, they are required to be civil, I shouldn't have to be a yes man to be able to participate, I'm not here to please ALL the people and I have found myself able to work and contribute to the project for years without problems, I'm not a dictator nor I try to force my will on others, I only request that others respect the rules they have agreed on as a way to contribute to the project, it is clear that if you refuse to find facts that prove that I have broken policies the reverse can't be said, as policies have been broken on the actions performed to me.

I don't want the community to be lenient on me, I want justice and my name cleared or that accusations are based and addressed, how can I admit to be convicted if I don't know of my crime, your post above clearly states it all. --Panic 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope that others will post their views. Panic I don't think you are innocent in all this but I don't want to see you banned and certainly not for 6 months.  Whiteknight has asked for community views on this but were community views sought before the 6 month ban was imposed?  Who must make the decision to unblock Panic?  Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, community views were sought before the 6 months ban was imposed. Please read my message on your talk page. --Iamunknown 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What i'm trying to do is help you in this current situation, to return to wikibooks as a productive and helpful member of this community. I'm saying that you are the problem, and because of this, other people do not like you. You don't want to admit any wrong doing whatsoever, instead placing the blame for this whole situation on other people. There is a behavioral problem here that needs to be corrected, and I don't care if you fix it or not. If you do not fix the problem that got you here, you won't be coming back to wikibooks. If, however, you are willing to find a solution to this problem, and if you are willing to work with us, you will be allowed to come back, and I am taking steps right now to speed up your return.
 * It is my conclusion, based on the arbitration logs, that you have been uncivil to a number of users, and I also do not think that your explanations of those instances were satisfactory or convincing. User:Darklama, User:James Dennett, User:Paddu, and User:SBJohnny all testified to your poor attitude and lack of civility in the mediation and in the arbitration pages. Any amount of "justice" here would require not only an apology from you to all these users, but also some kind of punishment.
 * I am not interested, however, in "justice" or "punishment", or "revenge" of any kind. What I want is for all wikibookians who want to help to be allowed to. I want you to fix your attitude and come back to wikibooks as a helpful, civil, productive contributor. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A Proposal
Panic, as you know there are arguements concerning whether you should have been banned and the length of any ban imposed. I don't know you personally and have had few dealings with you on Wikibooks but I have followed the arbitration and have talked with SBJohnny and other administrators on Wikibooks and IRC.

As you know, I'm not very happy with the ban. I think that you were probably in the wrong with this issue and that you should allow other people to get involved in the CProgramming book. I don't think a 6 month ban is at all appropriate and you should continue to be part of this project if you can work with the community again. In order to unban you though we need you to agree to respect other users, acknowledge some kind of wrong doing and promise to work with other people on the project. If you can do this then I will propose that you be unbanned immediately. Nothing I have said here is a promise as I am only an administrator but I hope others would agree for the sake of Wikibooks.

Please respond here or on my userpage.

Xania talk 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Xania, I comprehend your hopes and even understand that you further see me as a cause of problems, I don't have any disagreements with people on the book, nor did I exclude anyone from participating or engaged on actions perceived as uncivil.

I still have pending questions on moves and content deletion performed by Darklama as is expressly defined as violations because
 * 1) He didn't propose the changes to the existing book community (page moves, here is a post of User:Whiteknight 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC) on that regard)
 * 2) He performed more changes he knew I didn't agree with during the second block and after being asked not to continue by an administrator (here is a post of User:Whiteknight 00:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC) stating "I had asked darklama to take some time to back away and cool off, and he respectfully has followed that suggestion.")

SBJohnny did not only ignore it (example of changes during the block) but punished me for "similar" action after excluding himself from dialog. (dates and posts indicated are only relevant taking in consideration my block log)

More, it is also evident that I have not been contributing to the book since Darklama raised problems nor have I taken any action on his changes up until the time as I saw the clear use of double standards and an active effort to demonize my actions.

I was and agree to respect others and will continue to work with others, but I can't acknowledge something I didn't commit, can you provide some idea where I did commit those acts you think I must repent on ?

I also ask you to remove the proposal on the Staff lounge, proposal that I strongly disagree and see as an attempt to withe wash abusive action that did not have approval or complete understanding by the community. I have responded to the proposal of SBJohnny in a post above and he seems to have ignored that I strongly objected to it.

If indeed people are willing to address the perceived problems, it is foremost important to regulate the action that in itself is unlawful, that is, the recent taking over of an orderly process and the resulting block, the block has not only punished me but limited the way I can defend myself in a clear and understandable way, from the formal presentation of views we had during the arbitration, we are now reduced to this mess.

If a proposal needs to be considered, we must analise the events in a reverse order and provide with fairness the facts to the community.

I think it is clear that the last block did not address any new facts and that I was respecting all users intervening, I was not causing any damage and was participating in a constructive process, the block was not performed because I was breaking any news policy or being uncivil to others, what the block seems to have provided is a way to terminate a fair evaluation of facts, and in a clear way. The interpretations or why some selected to do so is beyond me and it seems to other users also (post of Xixtas 15:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC), post of Rob Horning 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)), including yourself. --Panic 00:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to point out here, publicly (since this page and my own user talk page have become substantial forii about this issue), that I was insisting that some sort of accomodations be made to discuss and come to a concensus about what sort of conclusion to this whole thing should be. It has not been overtly stated, but I believe that the "concensus" for this current 6-month block is something that was decided on the IRC channel with a few of the Wikibooks admins and others who are semi-regular there.   That was not my goal with the arbitration, but rather to have everybody, including yourself here (I don't think you agreed to the six month block) come to a reasonable accomodation... or at least something of a compromise.
 * I do want you to continue to work here on Wikibooks, as I think that many of the contributions you have made here are simply outstanding. You also provide a very different viewpoint to all of what we do here than seems to be common, which I believe is also one of the reasons why there seems to be conflict between yourself and some of the other people who are regular contributors to Wikibooks.  This, I believe, to be a very good thing and something that should be encouraged... within reason.
 * This cycle of finger pointing and complaining needs to end somehow. One of the "reasons" why I stayed away from the arbitration for the "two weeks" that was percieved to be an incompetince on my part was in part to get a little perspetive on this whole thing and try to avoid getting all worked up over everything.  I also did not see you, Panic, as an immediate danger to Wikibooks as you were not doing anything based on your user contribution log that was unreasonable or from what I could see as being even controvercial, except for perhaps those edits that were directly tied to the arbitration pages and your responses on your own user page.  For this reason alone, I think that the user block you recieved was completely out of line.
 * I should also note that I have a couple of pre-teens and a teenager who has been taking up a bunch of my time lately, am starting a brand new business (competely unrelated to Wikibooks), trying to finish off a couple of other programming contracts to get a little more money, taking a college class, dealing with my wife, and have a group of Boy Scouts that is also demanding my attention. Frankly I'm surprised that I have any time left over to deal with anything on Wikibooks at all, and to top it off I got side-tracked with an image fair-use issue on Wikipedia that has long-term consequences to Wikibooks as well.
 * I don't object to the other admins trying to try and resolve or end the arbitration. That was not the problem.  But I do think that what happened here was not the best possible solution and indeed was the worst possible outcome, and the most harsh possible "sentance" that might have been imposed.  This does not help Wikibooks out at all, and indeed sets a preceedence that Wikibooks users can arbitrarily get rid of people that don't have the same philosophical background as the rest of "us".  You were not a vandal, nor spamming Wikibooks with meaningless links and other garbage, which IMHO is the only reason to have an account to be blocked as yours was.  There certainly was no real substantial effort to gain community concensus here, or to try and find an impartial outside observer to this whole thing.  --Rob Horning 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You are now blocked for 2 weeks
Panic2k4 I have removed your 6 month block and reblocked you for 2 weeks. I have done this because 2 weeks was your original block and I believe that this was probably fair and that SBJohnny was probably acting in good faith. There was no need for a longer block and the outcome of the arbitration is viewed with suspicion by many people and not generally agreed to. It's possible that other administrators will not like my actions and that you will be reblocked for 6 months (and likely I will also be blocked) but I hope for the sake of community compromise this does not happen. Please make a special effort to get along with the other users and make sure you involve everyone in your work on the C Programming book. If you fail to do this then you will have little sympathy and support if another administrator decides to block you in future (and it'll make me look like a complete idiot if I don't already). Xania talk 12:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are now unblocked. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 13:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No I'm not :), please check the text that is displayed to blocked users as they try to edit, it is unreadable to a user that isn't fluent in Wikicode after the Template reference...
 * " You can add the Template Note: ..." --Panic 03:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why that didn't work, but you are blocked now, for 2 weeks. -- SB_Johnny | talk 03:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, figured it out. When Xania re-blocked you, he apparently autoblocked your IP address for 24 hours (the software has that as the default, so you have to unselect it to prevent it). Strange things happens when admins wheel-war, eh? -- SB_Johnny | talk 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

to SB_Johnny ONLY (please don't comment or add to this thread if you aren't SB_Johnny)
SB_Johnny, I request that you remove all proposals and stop any other action on the subject that lead us to this stage, there is no need for anyone involvement on this until a discussion on how to act on facts, I still continue to object that you still attempt to pass me as an being a threat to the community, further more I will strongly object to have to address you directly on this subject matter (I'll haply collaborate and address any other subjects in the future with you), due to the present situation it is of no benefit to you or to me to try to make the problem personal or bigger as it may still be a simple error on perceptions and on the applicability of Wikibooks policies. I will respect the now 2 weeks block as you wished in the first place, for the good of the community to try to defuse the discussion that was indeed taking a turn to the worst with the indisputable unlawful action taken (we should address that to, and probably first, but lets cool down first, for my benefit and withinfocus, he should have his say also), more, I also don't like this new block as I see no need for it, but will respect it under the stated reasons and as respect for the perceived reasons of some, that would have me blocked for six moths or permanently, at least it is a reduction of the "sentence", I can concede that much and see it as a step in the right direction and I'm lead to believe that at least you would also take it as done in accord to the last block you initiated.

I hope you do the same (wait) and let's see what Xania or Robert will do after block, not all that has passed was bad, a possible outcome would be some clear and useful alteration to some of the policies that were used as justification for the actions, no one should be excluded from the process but as was evident having some ground rules helps to avoid confusion and prevents that things get out of control. --Panic 02:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Panic, this isn't a personal conflict between you and me. Despite all of your efforts, I am still here, at your side, hoping to help you. I don't hate you, I'm not angry at you, and I'm not your enemy. There's only 2 ways forward now -- me or the stewards -- and I don't think the stewards will be as understanding as I am. We can work this out, but it's going to take some effort on your part (and mine). -- SB_Johnny | talk 03:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I'll end it here now and I'll wait, do what you must, but my objection stands, any proposal involving me without my consent is therefore null. I don't agree with your position or the implication that any of my efforts was intended to turn it into a personal conflict. --Panic 03:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Panic, I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you, but it's seemed to me over the past few weeks that you've been trying to push me out of the conversation. It would be perfectly understandable for you to do so (since I don't see things your way on many points), but I assure you that I'm here for the long haul. -- SB_Johnny | talk 03:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is sad that we can't yet read each others minds (well it may depend on possible outcome) that at least would make things easier, one way or the other, but probably the greatest problem I have when reading some of your posts is that you seem to add just a little of disinformation that has a perceivable negative impact on me. As a concrete example I call your attention to the "few weeks" and that was I that broke communications in the first place, I don't know if you do that with conscious or not but it seems to be a recurring problem on almost every post or word you write about the events related to me (I will avoid providing endless links to were I state this peculiarity and to similar situations it is most evident), I hope you don't take this a personal attack (it is only a remark that I have tried to impart to you in the past and you never acknowledged or tried to correct), as you may take this in a bad way, I'll state also that I to have some quirks or even personal problems that can sometime pass along or be misdirected especially as I have a harder time elaborating my replies and in general am dealing with time constrains or doing multitasking in several languages and I do like to be creative when I write, but even in my worst moments nothing of what I wrote so far, could have a meaning as removed from my stated intentions. Well, we will see, it may even be possible that is the core of the problem, I'm off, I'll be back after the block, humm, you may go to the bank with it. --Panic 04:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I do believe that you are often misread (I assume this is what you mean by "misdirected"?), and that you also sometimes misread others too. The problem lies in the fact that most other editors seem not to have this problem as often as you do, and as a matter of courtesey towards your fellow Wikibookians you need to try to find some way of making yourself understood better, and conversely working on understanding others too. The place we need to start is for you to just try and understand why people react to you the way they do. From there we need to come up with an alternative approach for you to take when dealing with other contributors.

If you want to take a break and think for a couple weeks that's fine, but your final unblocking will probably not happen until you can commit to this. If you can make that commitment in 2 days, you'll be unblocked in 2 days. If it takes longer, then the block will last longer. This block is not a punishment, it's just a hurdle that you need to overcome. I (and hopefully some others as time goes on) will help you as we can, but the job of understanding the issue and commiting to a resolution is your responsibility.

So again, here's the first question you need to consider, which you can answer in your own time. What is it about the way you interact with other Wikibookians that creates such strong, negative reactions? A few points to keep in mind:
 * As I said above, I'm not asking for an admission of guilt. I believe you when you say you are misunderstood, so this isn't about right or wrong, it's just that you are misunderstood so often, and you need to find a way to avoid this in the future.
 * I'm also not asking you to apologize. There has plenty of bad decisions made by plenty of good people (on my part too), but dealing with what's been done and said in the past is not thie issue now, because there will be no way to reconcile those past problems until we can prevent future ones. The only thing we're going to address about the past situations is as examples, where we'll try to find where the misunderstanding started. -- SB_Johnny | talk 19:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we finish this
Whether there's consensus or not is a bit unclear, but I'm pretty sure you won't be permanently unblocked if you don't make a commitment to try to get along with your fellow contributors. As things stand now, you will be blocked until you do, by me, so please just work with me here and get this resolved by answering my questions.

For the record, you are blocked for violating WB:CIVIL. Being civil doesn't just mean "not intentionally making people upset", but also "seeing and respecting the other's point of view", and given the long history involved here, I feel I am fully justified in blocking you until you show some understanding of why people have such a hard time interacting with you. You must answer the question I have asked you as a path towards complying with this policy. At the risk of repeating myself, I'll ask again: why do your fellow wikibookians have such a hard time getting along with you? -- SB_Johnny | talk 03:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW: I have redone your block to fall on Sunday, since that's an easier day for me to keep track of. You are blocked for 2 weeks, but I will unblock you as soon as you commit to a plan for getting along with your fellow contributors. -- SB_Johnny | talk 03:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

((unblock|Not a valid block, no formal policy or behavior guideline was broken, more this is the fifth time I'm wrongly blocked. Users should have the right to the preservation of their honor and good name and some level of protection from defamations or insinuations without proper profs or based on clear violation of community policies. Any dialog that would be made on the User:SBJohnny intended grounds can't be accepted because in it self violates the expectation that everyone comes to the wikibooks project with good will, I have proven time and time again that I do respect the rules and even subjected myself to a block expecting the same from any others involved, it is clear that 1)I have done no wrong 2)there is no clear motive for any of the blocks 3)no policy justifies any of the blocks except personal judgment that lead to repeated abuse of the block policy. It is clear and self evident that community consensus (-1) can't be invoked to justify personalized action against a user, the community must take only action based on general policies that should apply to everyone, no one should be singled out for disciplinary actions. The only purpose blocking me further has, is to prevent a dialog on equal terms and to increase the perception that I in some way am dangerous, I must remind you that if I was indeed dangerous any block wouldn't prevent me of causing damage and this also demonstrates that I still wish to have all actions taken against me addressed and my name cleared. )) --Panic 05:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No threats, please... I can block your IP as well, and if you go around the block, we will not be talking any more because you will be permanently banned. I don't see anyone unblocking you unless you show some effort, so please just answer the question: why do you keep getting into the sorts of conflicts you do? It's not all you (it takes two to tango, as they say), but you certainly have played a part. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That was no threat a block on the way you are applying it is only possible, or I should say, will only serve your purposes because I'm not a threat and I play along, if I was to actively contest or object to it you would be hard pressed to make it work or even having any policy that would validate action against my options to react to it, this block works because I allow it to be so... This is just to be clear that my motivations are not to cause chaos and destruction.
 * But I will play along with you until my objections are addressed...
 * As a reply to your first question "why do your fellow wikibookians have such a hard time getting along with you?"
 * I have to reply in parts, No wikibookians (other than you) have expressed problems getting along with me. No formal request was posted on my talkpage or in the staff lounge as it is requested by policy to formalize a complain or just to inform me and enable me to take action on the perceived problem.
 * Don't be silly. Do take this seriously.-- SB_Johnny | talk
 * As for the second question. "why do you keep getting into the sorts of conflicts you do?"
 * Because I'm not afraid to express my opinion, even if this can get me in trouble, if I think it will be benefiting others I will gladly engage the subject, in example your faulty interpretation of the block policy or the removal of the authors page from the print version and cover page in what I say is a violation of the GFDL.--Panic 18:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What got you entangled in a conflict about the author's page wasn't the debate about its removal. -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can perfectly understand if Panic isn't taking this seriously. This has gone on long enough and it's clear that both parties continue to disagree.  These kind of blockings are making the community look silly.  Panic I would unblock you in an instant if I thought it would have any effect but it wouldn't.  SBJohnny please try to sort this out.  You seem to want nothing but Panics personal and humble apology - move on and try to look forward. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 22:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * User:SBJohnny please try to understand that I do take you seriously since your actions do have a negative impact on me, in return I expect that you treat me also seriously, your comment above doesn't provide any useful remark to the discussion, if you are not only content on asking questions and wish also to answer them, what can I do...
 * Do you in any case take the position that my statements are incorrect? if so state were. In regards to the GFDL problem you may be confusing my several objections, in that case I was referring to the instance you validated another user creating a print version with a different TOC and removing the authors page (it is on the back burner now part of a big list of actions I will have to address, but I can provide links if you don't remember that particular event), that was an example on of the many subjects we don't see eye to eye. --Panic 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's try again. "No wikibookians (other than you) have expressed problems getting along with me" is a very silly thing to say, especially after all that was written on the Arbitration pages. I won't have any trouble with you once you make a commitment not to be involved in the kind problems mentioned there.

As for the author's page problem, here are the other aspects that need to be addressed:
 * 1) You have only listed yourself as an author, despite the fact that others have contributed, and perhaps even more importantly because at least some of the stuff you put into the book was from other, non-GFDL source materials (acccording to one of the people you've been warring with). What the GFDL says is to list the top 5 authors, not to ask the top 5 authors if they would like to be listed.
 * 2) You have insisted that any changes to be made to the book be approved by the "book community", but you insist that this only includes "active authors", and after previous disputes, the only active author is you, so you are the book community.

So please discuss ways in which you can avoid this in the future. Also think about your unusual approach to talk pages, such as rewording other contributors' comments, refactoring, etc. -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Anything "written on an Arbitration page" is not a problem with Panic per se.
 * 2. Why did you not include the other 4 yourself instead of blocking Panic? His interpretation of the authorship status doesn't really seem very invalid to me...
 * 3. When anyone else includes oneself in that community it will not consist of Panic alone any more... As long as you don't do it yourself, why are you representing the said community?
 * 4. You could have suggested he use strikethrough font to highlight the changes made to others' posts. -- Jokes Free4Me 15:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Read the page.
 * 2. That's not why he's blocked, which he knows quite well.
 * 3. He won't let anyone else include themselves (this is the core of the problem).
 * 4. That wouldn't do, and it's as much a problem of moving talk pages around in a conversation-controlling manner. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is ludicrous to think that anyone should ever change another person's post. The only time anything should ever been is to (maybe) remove a nasty personal attack or to archive it in a sensible manner (i.e. a sub-page, /Archive N). Johnny is representing my feelings well, and authorship, considering that Wikibooks is a collaborative volunteer community, should -never- be construed into an aggressive editorial style and talk page refactoring. --Iamunknown 20:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry User:Iamunknown but you may also have missed something, User:SBJohnny validated another user moves of pages out of a book (part of the users first actions on that book), removal of authors page and reformatting of the book without consulting (I don't even say consensual agreement), so you probably have misunderstood the facts (check arbitration logs for links). Perception is not all, check the facts for yourself before commenting. Do you think I would be crazy enough to be making such a noise if I didn't thought to be in the right ?!?!?. How can you justify the events leading to the contested end of the arbitration or even this last block I assure you that those actions were not performed for the benefit of the community and that is self evident. --Panic 23:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry User:Panic2k4, I have checked the facts and made my own conclusions. --Iamunknown 07:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

User:SBJohnny, User:Jokes Free4Me does make a point, participation on the arbitration was after the fact, that is, after the blocks, and some of the facts you stated were incorrect, to say the least, and an attempt to validate your actions and to involve others, like for example Paddu, that alone in the terms that was performed clearly indicates bad faith of your part User:SBJohnny (I don't need more information on that, I know perfectly well how, when and why) and participation on the arbitration was requested of any one with any aggravation with me or just to provide evidence, like WK did, he didn't have any direct or active complain. At this moment I don't know why I'm blocked as you didn't state in accord to the block policy a specific reason, as I say is a violation of the block policy. Point 3 is a plain lie (as there is a high probability that you are distorting fact with intention) as is now becoming common, you know pretty well to what I objected to, so please state things correctly or if you fell that it would be useful ask me, don't put words in my mouth. But that was not the "stated" reason of any of your blocks, I'll give you that. Point 4 is also a lie (but on this I can consider that you just don't know the facts), the person that moved pages around was not me, but if you are referring to events of 2004 in relation to Paddu, on the same charge you would have to block Paddu, 2 other administrators (at least they were at the time) and Darklama just to be fair (I'm probably forgetting some others but again there was no stated/formalized complain by any one, well I did state my complains to Darklama from day 1). As I said time and time again none of your supposed accusations have valid points at least none would even have merited a single block, they are plain fabrications or just your misinterpretation or misrepresentation of facts. --Panic 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The current issue is the current block, which will not be lifted until you make a serious commitment to get along with those who would like to work with you. I act in good faith, as I always have and always will.
 * You are blocked for violating WB:CIVIL. You have been uncivil enough times to warrant keeping you blocked until you agree not to act that way any more.
 * You have told me that you didn't mean any harm in any of these disputes, and I believe you. Again: being civil means taking the other person's feelings into account. Is there something you can do, on your part, to help prevent these kinds of disputes in the future? That's all that's being asked of you, and you will be unblocked as soon as you make that commitment. -- SB_Johnny | talk 01:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

Please point to a violation of WB:CIVIL by my part a single one, and please don't reefer again to the request I made to a user to resolve an edit issue in a time frame as a violation of the WB:CIVIL as it was not (link is provided on the arbitration log to my message to the user), no treats or obligation was implied, in that specific case I stated what is the normal way of resolving edit errors, and in consideration to the user's work and knowledge of the subject I asked him to correct it no more no less, in that particular case I didn't revert the changes (3,4 scattered words that broke the logic of the text) and even you a non coder can understand that a text that says the sky is blue and not blue doesn't make sense (that was the motivation of my request), and I corrected the changes without reverting the text and the user agreed to the said changes, the user in question did not complain to me or in the staff lounge about the event, that was a clear fabrication with the intention of justify your actions as for the motivation (block 2 and 3) only you can clarify especially the allegation that I byte newcomers to the work. Is there something you can do, on your part, to help prevent these kinds of disputes in the future? of course I will try to prevent disputes but all my actions were within the rules governing Wikibooks and I was not the initiator or the person that broke the policies in the first place, and if I see in the future anyone acting against the policies I will request again that they comply to them...


 * You have only listed yourself as an author, despite the fact that others have contributed, and perhaps even more importantly because at least some of the stuff you put into the book was from other, non-GFDL source materials (according to one of the people you've been warring with). What the GFDL says is to list the top 5 authors, not to ask the top 5 authors if they would like to be listed.

This is false, it is my right to include myself as author (as I'm an author of the book), I take personal and legal responsibility for the work (that is what an author does as he signs a work) in any case of problems I have in my possession emails for all the works I have included on the book from the original authors. I wasn't warring with anyone. The number five is a limit not an obligation, authors can't be added to the list they can/should only add themselves to the list if they so decide. I know that my definition of author is not subscribed by you but it is the legal definition, not all contributors are automatically authors even if the GFDL doesn't define what a author is in it self a pretty good understanding can be extracted on the wording of what constitutes derivative works.


 * You have insisted that any changes to be made to the book be approved by the "book community", but you insist that this only includes "active authors", and after previous disputes, the only active author is you, so you are the book community.

This is also incorrect, it is my view that it should be so, that is only people adding content to a book should decide upon it's evolution, as there is no "book community" definition at present (lets say imposing a limit on contributions to a work), it is my impression that the majority of the Wikibooks community sees as any user that makes any edit is part of the said "book community", I don't agree with it and will work to provide a better definition, I had no disputes on that base, what you perceived as such was that another user made actions against policy and I as an active (but never claiming to be the only) member of the targeted book requested (did not revert) him to correct his actions, no more no less. In that case your actions as an administrator were at least poor, as you further validated the breaking of the specific rules that guide such disputes. --Panic 01:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop shouting. Wikibooks is a wikimedia project. Everyone can contribute and edit. Contributing and editing is how we write books.
 * I'm not going to argue details with you here any more... I'll be more than happy to work on a "book community" policy (and even more importantly an attribution policy!) with you when we're done here. This conversation is about civil collaboraion with others, which you need to do just like everyone else. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As a note, I must point that all actions that broke policy by that particular user are still active (and under objection by me), more, I take personal offense to the recent change of wording done to the authors page, those changes can only be driven by bad intentions due to the wording used and not only add further implications of bad practices to me but also about the work and seem in conformity with your bad assumptions probably based on bad information, it is clear that people are again spreading insinuations about matters that they don't directly address to the proper channel... Also FYI removing other books that were used on the work even if they are no longer present on Wikibooks is also a violation of GFDL. --Panic 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that the C++ pages are not on my watchlist at the moment, and people don't need to ask me to approve changes to it any more than they need to ask for your approval. If you have a concern about something, please provide a diff and a (calm, civil) explnation of your concern. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do. --Panic 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha-ha, funny :). Panic, your technical skills have never been in doubt, and you have nothing to prove. If you'd rather go around the problem than deal with it "as yourself", that's fine... as I'm sure you know we have no policy on sockpuppets. If you want to fix this the honorable way, I'm here.

(adding after edit conflict:) Thanks... let me know about that, I will help you make your case. -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dhhooo ?!?! I'm clueless here... :) And I invoke the 5th :). Anyway I will in any event address the "problems", I have been doing so but I wish you would also acknowledge several problem on your part. As you seem invested on also working around the real problems I will play along. On the other hand I do seem to have something to prove and I will do it in a non destructive and even productive and honorable way without breaking policy since it seems perception is of foremost importance above the facts. (against what you claim, I do seem to have a good understanding of the Wikibooks policies) As I said please state the event were I have broken the WB:CIVIL policy and try to speed thing up if you really wish to resolve this problem, we all have better things to do. --Panic 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Taking the 5th is wise, and I'm glad we're on "playing terms" again :). For the record, your original block (the one that Robert undid) was for setting back the clock on the talk pages without seeking input of discussion from those who spent a lot of time, thought, and effort into undoing what you had done. The current block is for insisting that you're "innocent", and asserting your right to keep on doing things as you've been doing them, which wouldn't be a problem except that "doing things as you've been doing them" has really hurt some people.


 * I know you don't mean to hurt people, and I respect your sense of humor and irony. The only reason I'm willing to spend time and effort on this is because I know you're for real, and I want you to be part of the project (aside from your insights on policy issues, I think you might have some skills needed by those of us who believe in the cause of meta:WP:OP).


 * So to get back to the conversation: If you could edit outside your userpage (using this account, of course), what would your response be to the edit you mentioned above? (I'm still not sure what edit you mean... I really do need a diff!) I'd like to talk about that, rather than what's gone before. -- SB_Johnny | talk 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, cut it out with the sockpuppets. That sort of joke is only funny until someone gets it, and "the audience" will turn against you in a way you don't deserve :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 01:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppets exist, the community only doesn't know who most are (there is no single solution to this, a statistical analysis on the interaction of users or participation/edits/contributions could help identify who they are but even that would be easily bypassed, ips can't be trusted for identity purposes, this was the first time I took such an action and just to prove a point and I think not only you have noticed it :), no harm is done or is intended, but I now come to see a purpose or even a usefulness to them, they can be a great tool to avoid and redirect conflicts or at least deflate them. Also this proves that way that WK is using the decision by consensus, to what I do also object to, can be abused), another one is that if no restriction is given to "outsiders" or people that have no invested interest on the project disruption will be easy and unavoidable, this is why a definition of a book community should exist.
 * I have posted the diff on your talkpage. --Panic 01:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Again you are incorrect, just before, during the 5 blocks and up to now, I never removed, altered or subverted any other users talk page, or even the book's talk pages. I only removed my post on a single talk in relation to Darklama as I was lured to a debate of the use of the We (as we Wikibookians) in front of another user that didn't have a knowledge of what was going on, James). The restructuring of the book talk pages (as they were before Darklama took upon himself to change while I was blocked) was done in 2004/2005 on the forked work, it is also my view (not contested by any policy or guideline) that Books are not wikipedia articles, centralization of the content discussion is vital to get users involved and aware of what is going on in the structure or the flow of the book, as it is, most users use a single page talk to post a problem and if lucky they remember to watch it, the probability that a significant number of other users is monitoring the same page is very low, even more if a book is under heavy evolution and restructuring, then it will be indeed very small, on the forked work I (without any objection), and as I do monitor every single page of the book, started to reply to users on a specific talk page and at the same time informing that the post and reply would be moved to the proper place (giving the link) and after the move redirecting the talk page, this is useful to all, after the merge the structure continued to evolve on those terms, even other admins helped moving them as they were. After you ended conversation I was forced to restore the pages to their proper place, giving warning that I would do it, no more no less.

My primary problem was and is with Darklama and I was addressing it in a civil way until you performed the blocks and validated his abuse (I will list all the problems I have on your talk page one by one for you to correct, had you done that at the time we could have avoided all this). The problems or divergences are stated on the top of the page they are more about general policy not on the specific edits and you were called to comment on them at the time, the other problems is that Darklama insists on reformatting, alter (the logic or flow) and remove content, even corrupting history logs of the book this without adding any content to it or requesting input from the people working on it (most of the time, we were doing more or less well up to your first block). --Panic 02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the puppet tricks have raised hairs... congratulations. I'll post more later. -- SB_Johnny | talk 14:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope we can continue our conversation, but you (and your socks) will be hardblocked now. That was really poor judgement on your part, and at least in the near term I can't unblock you.


 * BTW, I looked into those diffs... I'll ask herby about the first one, not sure what the problem is with the second. -- SB_Johnny | talk 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hardblock doesn't work, what I said is still valid blocks only work if the user allows them. I don't see any problem on that, you can say I didn't respect your block if you wish, but as things are, I have been blocked for to long and your social experiment is flawed as I say I didn't commit any violation and it is now evident that you took actions without understanding the problem. --Panic 16:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Panic, what's become evident is that you're perfectly willing to disrupt the Wikibooks project, which is far from civil. Your continued creation of puppets only serves to reinforce this, and there's no chance of you being unblocked while you do this.
 * BTW, the first diff you gave me was the wrong one... that was Darklama, not Herbythyme. I'm still not clear what the problem is with his edit. -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Another BTW: while I wish you'd cut it out, please just try not to use names that someone might want later (maybe check on wikipedia first... if they're permablocked vandals then feel free). Given the names you've used so far, I'm guessing you've already thought of that, but I thought I'd mention it just in case. -- SB_Johnny | talk 19:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)