User talk:Xixtas/Block of Panic2k4 20070328 Archive

Why??????
I blocked your sockpuppet (User:BixoDePalha)... why on earth are you doing this again? -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW: your IP might be blocked, depending on which one you're trying to use for your main account. That's an autoblock of the IP used by the puppet, and will expire in 23 hours or so. If that's a serious hinderance to your editing, I'll lift the autoblock (I'll be in and out today), otherwise just use one of your other IPs. -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol I got a really funny phonecall about this one...
 * Well, SBJohnny you are only right on one point, the user and I really share the same IP (as I have a NAT server to provide some college students access to the Net), I have spoken to BixoDePalha and examined the action and don't see a real problem, the edit was not vandalism, the change that originated the edit were not justified with a summary (nor the change itself), the users even if we generalize and say BixoDePalha was indeed working at my behalf or even myself, had no conflict with the user that did the first change. I could have done the change myself and would probably have done it.
 * As a side note, I have tried to explain several times why sock puppets don't belong to the BLOCK policy, and this last block is a show how not to use the block function, puppets aren't blockable by default (open proxy are even if not on the policy), what was the reason used for the block?
 * In place of wanting to delete stuff and block users a little patience and addressing things would be more productive.
 * Ok, I'll now do the action myself (I will revert to before my first edit), as I and Xixtas were discussing already the problem but as it seems that if the situation is not resolved faster conflict and confusion will persist I will make a edit conflict request with Darklama so to see if we resolve things.
 * I'll probably will have problems editing with my account, so see about that as you can. --Panic 14:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad faith sockpuppets, like the kind that you employed are part of the block policy, and will stay that way, whether you like it or not. Your history of sockpuppetry has reduced your credibility in this area to zero, and we have to assume that any other accounts coming from your IP are bad-faith sockpuppets under your control. You previously used puppets to circumvent a block, and I have little doubt that you would also use sockpuppets to force your agenda on the C++ book (you have mentioned the idea before). There are two factors that go against you here:
 * You have a documented history of not working well with others.
 * You have a documented history of breaking policy to prove a point (with your sockpuppets)
 * You should apologize to your friend because your bad judgement has caused that account to be blocked (and future accounts from that IP will likely be blocked as well). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit was not in bad faith, no vandalism and I can share my IP and take responsibility for it. Had I seen the change to TOC2, I would have addressed it myself. Calling bloody murder will not change the point as there is no new event to report here. --Panic 14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And we are supposed to take your word for it? You may persuade other people with your story, but I am not convinced. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't need to convince no one, the actions speak for themselves go see the logs. As for the "existing" conflict it was being addressed, sort of, with the help by Xixtas. --Panic 15:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Panic, if it really is a friend of yours (and not a friend of the "me, myself, and I" variety), I'll be happy to unblock him, so long as I have your solemn word that this is not you. My alarm bells went off because I saw a brand new editor make only one contrib, and the contrib was to a page you're apparently in a dispute over, and the Checkuser identified the IP as being used only by you and one of your "parody" puppets. If it's a friend of yours and he wants to contribute, that's fine, but please promise me that that's really the case. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have admitted to every puppets I own (btw they should be unblocked), if I had done it I would admit to it, no problem, even if your assumption was correct the edit or the sharing of the IP shouldn't validate the block, again there was no vandalism, no complain and no conflict (that is also why I defend the 3RR), for me you can have the account blocked, I don't know what he was doing but it seams there were no contributions and he told me he was just checking the changes I had made yesterday to the pages. I have told him he can request a unblock so it is up to him. (we are not on the same house)
 * Again blocking users on that way even based on sock puppet for a logic is not correct, not even if it was indeed me, as WK stated early (can hunt for a quote) sock puppets may even indeed prevent conflict. --Panic 15:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The puppet account was used as part of a revert war at the C++ Programming page. I have protected that page from editing, and posted a notice about it. I don't think it's likely that a new user will, on his first edit, participate in a wheel war on the behalf of panic. Furthermore, since the account came from Panic's IP, i think there is a high probability that this is a sockpuppet account, or is at least an account from a person who is a member of Panic's agenda. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can live with that (even if Editor's TOC is not the best solution to readers). But an end must be given to the conflict that still originates this confusions, to the divergence between me and Darklama, the existence of several book TOCs and duplication of pages inside a single book. --Panic 15:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The same treatment should be given to C++ Programming/Programming_Basics see talk the content is a duplication of pages and that indeed has been an active dispute with reverses by me and Darklama. --Panic 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above page is an amalgamation of content from {C++ Programming/Introducing C++, C++ Programming/Programming Language, C++ Programming/Programming Paradigms, C++ Programming/Source File and C++ Programming/Statements, I have restored the pages yesterday from a redirect status. (95% content is identical) --Panic 15:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, boy. Panic, I can't unblock that account right now, sorry. I've only been skimming through your conversations of late, and all I'm sure of is that you're in some sort of edit dispute again, and a mysterious user made an edit on "your side", using an IP that you have used both for your main account and one of your "parody accounts". If you want to provide a brief, plain-English explanation of what's going on I can give you my opinion, but that's all. -- SB_Johnny | talk 16:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not again, still the same, the same that "originated" your first block... And no thanks I think I'll be safer without any input from you on it, you already accomplished to much today. And again if the change was on my side another was on someone else's side. right? Can you checkuser that other account as well just clear things up.  --Panic 16:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, one step ahead of you... I already ran checkuser on the other person: results show nothing suspicious :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol (I realized this thing... so I'll put it into words). Just to show a "positive side" on all this. Do you know that joke about a person that enters a bar and after a while becomes uncomfortable because the patrons are having to much of a good time, every time one of them stands up and speaks a number they laugh and clap appreciatively (if you don't know the joke I will try to find it for you), well, as you probably know by now, I also do spend some time on a IRC channel (#C++) and from time to time people there also have a great laugh, every time I say "I'm blocked". (so at least someone can be seen as getting something of all this, :) )... --Panic 16:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Panic, I assure you that I didn't have any celebratory urges when I heard you were blocked again, and to be frank I wouldn't have blocked you this time (and really would have unblocked your puppet if I hadn't recieved strongly worded warnings about how I needed to let others make that decision). I don't object to you being blocked, because I think you're an incorrigably mischevious troll, but I don't hold that against you because I kind of admire your persistence in causing mischief. You got spunk, and I like that in a person.


 * If you have a serious point to make, the best person to try to convince would be me, because you know I'm not going to believe you without a very convincing argument. I'm like New York: If you can make the argument stick with me, you can make the argument stick with anybody. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I recognize the block as valid under what I accepted to, so Xixtas is completely right there, if there was a complain it has to be addressed, I made the bed now I have to lay on it.... (how goes that story about the boy that cried wolf or is Chicken Little). I get the logic of the action not the reasoning behind it, I'm sorry I didn't take the action myself (as it was it only provided ammo to others), I could even say that by using checkuser and point BixoDePalha as sharing my IP you were acting not to prevent any abuse (as the same could have been stated about any user that changed the page, and so WK action was on the spot), but to further validate you vision of me as a "incorrigably mischevious troll" :), no problem there I got you also pretty good now, I can even say that you are the Wikibookian I know and understand best (I know I annoy you, Darklama, WK and WF), and I'm also sure that you get me and a "incorrigably mischevious troll" is only your way to reinforce that image to others, so please don't call me a troll, call me persistent or something like that, the more annoyed I become the more determined to obstruct that kind or stance and logic on Wikibooks I will be. --Panic 22:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, "you're an incredibly persistent person who really enjoys arguing with people much more than they enjoy arguing with you, and despite knowing that they don't like arguing with you as much as you like arguing with them, you still insist that they argue with you, because you like arguing with people, and people just need to accept that". That's pretty much what I mean by "troll", and you have to admit that it pretty much describes you to a tee, no?


 * I don't insist and don't particularly like but do when needed. And no I don't agree with that generic description as a definition of a troll or to me in particular, I remind you that until "recently" I had no reason to argue with you, and for my part I tried to not engage you as much as I can. No ? --Panic 00:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with being that way, but if you're going to be that way, you have to accept the consequences, and sometimes the consequences are that you can't hang with the people that have no patience for such nonsense.


 * I do think that being as you state is wrong, people who seek discussion without motives are just time sinks, and I object to be anything like it or having the time and need to be. --Panic 00:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you're into parables, let me give you a "real account" of my former life as a barfly, which might serve as a good parable for you (or at least for you and me). Before I was a dad (and had time to go to bars), I used to go out several nights a week and play darts or pool. I often played with the same people, and they were my friends. I didn't go out with them to do other things, but when we were playing darts or pool, we were friends. We were friends when fights happened too, and I've stood back to back with people I didn't really like all that much because they were my friends, and even though they were assholes, I was willing to shed and/or draw blood on their behalf because they were my friend, and I knew they would do the same for me (though believe it or not I was never the one to start the bar fight).


 * In that we diverge, I have stood with friends against bad odds on a just cause or good principle but I don't give support to actions just on friendship alone and don't expect others to, friendship to me is fluid and based on shared views, ideas and principles, I'm not an emotional guy, I work on logic. I don't know if you are using the term friends to generally, but I personally don't hang out with people I don't respect (I may have to work or do tasks with them but that is it) and I'm known to start a fight if a good enough reason is present, even if not expressly stated and I don't consider odds when action must be taken, I'm a pretty frontal person.  --Panic 00:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't hang with people I don't respect either, but I'm still here hangin with you :). I'm pretty bisy this time of year though, so don't ask too much. -- SB_Johnny | talk 00:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with you, Panic, is that you don't seem the type to have any friends at all. If we were playing pool together in a bar and some big guy started picking on you, I might intervene on principle, but I would never assume you would take my back. I don't think you'd fight for Wikibooks either, if there was a real fight, so you're a charity case. Stop playing around and we can talk, but you've pretty much run your tab on bullshit, so if you want to get serious and talk, you better be serious from the start. -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have good friends, I may limit the number by quality but I think I'm better off. --Panic 00:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You Have Been Blocked
In accordance with your unblock agreement you have been blocked because another editor has requested it. The complaint involves the use of sockpuppets (or meatpuppets it doesn't matter) in an editing dispute. Also, there are accusations of uncivil behavior, and unwillingness to work collaboratively with other contributors. -- xixtas talk 15:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you indicate who ? --Panic 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The complaint I acted on was brought by withinfocus on the administrators notice board. The terms for unblocking are as follows:
 * You will be unblocked when (a) the person complaining about you requests it, (b) the blocking adnimistrator is satisfied with your explanation of whatever brought about the block, (c) at least 2 other administrators request unblocking, with no "opposition votes", or (d) a majority of administrators support unblocking after 4 days of the issue being on the administrator's noticeboard.
 * I am not satisfied with your explanation. In fact, I find it to be wholly unbelievable, and am surprised that you would attempt something so bald-faced. We are not required to assume good faith when evidence points to the contrary, and lying is certainly evidence of bad faith. -- xixtas talk 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I said I didn't and I don't expect or need for you to believe me on that (not I or you can offer prof to contrary and it isn't even relevant), had I been active and seen the change I would do it myself and with a proper summary to the "restoration", anyway I have solved the issue and did a block myself to the wikibooks IP from my LAN, as for the controlling another account, I don't see that of particular relevance to the edit performed, it was not a revert war nor a undo of any of Darklama's actions. As I said above SB Jhonny keen eyes noticed that edit and used a particular sense of justice to point out the edit restoring the page, but he took no similar resolution on the changes favoring Darklama's, that user actions were expressly intended create a reaction (see the users last changes). Did anyone act to see if he is a puppet (or meat puppet) of someone of the involved on disputes (or active divergences) with me? I take also as "strange" complain Withinfocus, he wasn't involved here or a party in the active dispute, what is he complaining about? To be fair and complete I must point out to you that Darklama was the cause behind SB Jhonny first block and I have active divergences on policy and some clearly expressed on both sides with those Wikibookians and WhiteKnight and Withinfocus, so this was more or less expected sooner or later.  --Panic 03:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To you the administrator that blocked me, what was the wrong doing here, even considering that I was the one making the change (as I clearly admitted that I would have done it, had I the chance). --Panic 23:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole issue is being discussed on WB:AN. Xixtas shouldn't have to reiterate the issues here as well. You may be blocked, but you can still read that discussion. If you feel the necessity, you can post your responses and defenses here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is relevant because on that disputed page using a sockpuppet is designed to deceive other contributors. I ask you to own your actions. I did review the other editor's history. He has been a contributor here for some time, and there is no reason to suspect him of being a sock that I notice. If you had performed the revert with your own user account, we would have continued trying to hash out what should be on the main page, and you would not have been blocked. Instead, you chose a different path. So own it. I am now concerned about your ability to be honest and forthright with other contributors. You have "divergences on policy" with every Wikibookian that I know. Not just the four.


 * I have begun to see it as inevitable that you will be blocked from Wikibooks indefinitely, because you seem to be incapable of working with others on anyone's ideas other than your own. You seem to see every interaction through the lens of competition. Like each discussion is a boxing match, rather than a more productive metaphor like a band working together to create music. It might be better for everyone if we all just said this is it, the end of the road, irreconcilable differences. You can take your book and create your own fork on a different GFDL wiki somewhere. In order to work on wikibooks though, you must be willing to collaborate, assume good faith, allow others to be bold and treat others with respect. These concepts are fundamental to Wikimedia so regardless if they are formal policies or if you agree with them or not. They are critical concepts that have broad support among the community. Respectful, effective collaboration is not something that you seem to be willing or perhaps able to do. I think it would be mutually beneficial at this point for Panic and Wikibooks to split permanently as amicably as possible.


 * I've been thinking about my experiences as a drug counselor in a 28 day program many years ago today. You have to be accepting of failure in that job, because many of the people you try to help will not succeed. Indeed, too many end up killing themselves. It is sad. Today I am sad that no-one here could help you learn to be an effective collaborator. But as many others have pointed out, it's probably time to stop trying. -- xixtas talk 04:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

-

I recognize the block as valid under what I accepted to, you are completely right there, if there was a complain it has to be addressed, I made the bed now I have to lay on it.... If I desired to deceive other users would I use an account that would be traced to me? I have shown IPs have little usefulness as identification before, and blocks do not really work. And deceive ?!? deceiving whom ?!? with what intention ?!? We are talking about a single character on a page, not a reword or restatement but an edited reversion (I would have reverted it), not a personal offense or misrepresentation occurred, it was not even an actions that needed covering up, even if I was attempting to "elude" someone it could be seen as even an attempt to not aggravate the situation (your interpretation is not the only one), but as I said I would have done it myself without resourcing to any deception. SB Johnny, was not acting to protect abuse when he used checkuser to show BixoDePalha as sharing my IP and he took actions that demonstrate clearly intention to make that into an even, he could have stated more or less the same about the first change to the page (or even taken action), his notice of the fact and his rapid reaction and the noise level is even more out of place. I also think that SB Jhonny block was not based on policy and again lacking the due process needed, we could say that he likes to flame users with other views and this is systematic as was shown recently on the staff lounge, there are better ways to express objections, and I have to acknowledge that WhiteKnight was correct on all his actions on this subject. As for the first editor, did you noticed that he also adulterated the information on the author's page ? That it too is part a center of dispute with Darklama that feels that is ok to remove it from the book and has done so on toc2 and even on the print version, that SB Jhonny defended that point of view, and it was one of the factors for my first block. This is more complex than you probably know. "If you had performed the revert with your own user account, we would have continued trying to hash out what should be on the main page, and you would not have been blocked." Again I can't prove it to you nor you the reverse, I grant you the freedom to interpret it as you will, in any case using other one's account can't be controlled or assured and is not part of policy, users shouldn't be blocked on whims, and we were already discussing the matter (and more engaged into it than Darklama that was the actor behind the need to address it, it is not as he has been absent and unable to address the subject). "You have "divergences on policy" with every Wikibookian that I know.", this is not correct. I have divergences with Darklama, SB Jhonny, WhiteKnight and Winthinfocus. This is more or less expressed on a reply I made to WhiteKnight. The single fact that Winthinfocus did make the complaint (complain that he had no part in, besides as an observer) even grants us the full house, they are all there, so who is being deceptive here... Do you understand group think ond the formation of power grups? Don't you see the same users acting also in coordination now against Robert, and as you know this type of coordination is not something new on those same users. Darklama's actions almost from the start (2nd post on the users talk page), have been more of the disruptive nature than on the productive (I have monitored with attention all his actions on the book), the need to create a different structure to the book, removing the copyright information from the book, moving pages, deleting content and acting on it unilaterally, and even duplicating content, for instance The C++ Programming/Programming Basics page is an amalgamation of content from {C++ Programming/Introducing C++, C++ Programming/Programming Language, C++ Programming/Programming Paradigms, C++ Programming/Source File and C++ Programming/Statements, I have restored the pages from a redirect status (95% content was identical), I have been cooperative with him as far as I could, what other books do you see having 2 sets of structures on Wikibooks?, Am I the one unable to collaborate ?!? He as gone so far to support the deletion of the work, am I to consider it an investment on providing content? I'm always willing to collaborate, I do assume good faith, an I allow others to be bold and do treat others with respect. This is shown by actions and no actions shows the contrary. You are free to make your own interpretation but please act only on facts. --Panic 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Panic it would be really useful if you stopped archiving this page. I had to look through the history to find out wtf was happening and to see earlier comments.  I believe that people have been a little unfair as you provided a good excuse and for us not to believe that is not good faith.  As it's difficult for me to read all the deleted messages that you've removed can you confirm that you are saying that this 'sockpuppet' was not 'you' but a friend of yours? Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 21:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll provide the link [here], but yes as I don't live in a bubble I have discussed what has been happening with other people, I have a several students on IT, CS, Physics and Chemistry courses that have rooms rented on a neighbor on the same building (and share my own connection), I wouldn't go so far as calling them friends, I have now removed access to them to wikibooks (if the dns is static) so to prevent further confusions. I have talked to the one that did the "reversal" and cleared it, he was indeed acting on my behalf but not in a coordinated way (I support the intention but not the action as it indeed undermines me here), if my nick is panic you would see the reaction he had when the issues came out and phoned me, I had to drop my job for the rest of the day to attempt to clear things out. I have no way I can think of to prove any of this but an examination of the timeframe the events and the time I took to address the issue provides some support, I rarely edit so soon on the day. --Panic 21:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

-- Okay, then this should be fine. I would like you to affirm the following statements:

I will
 * not use sockpuppets in an editing dispute or to circumvent a block.
 * assume good faith, and believe without proof that other Wikibookians are trying to help the project, not hurt it.
 * collaborate with other Wikibookians even in cases where I disagree with them.
 * allow others to be bold.
 * treat all Wikibookians with respect and civility.
 * not attempt to deceive other Wikibookians.
 * limit my reverts to cases of outright vandalism and will try to fix any errors I find through iterative changes.
 * try in good faith to work on a community version of the modules I am editing and not create new modules to circumvent the need for collaboration.
 * agree to these things of my free will irregardless of whether previous actions done to me were justified or unjustified.

For my part, as a show of good faith, I personally will affirm all of these things myself on my talk page. -- xixtas talk 01:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lets wait a week let the block active, you should also address Whitinfocus opposition, continue to monitor the pages and I don't need you to re/affirm all (You can reduce some of the listed issues as I have affirmed as much and have not broken them, and other are ripe to be included on general policy), I never doubted your good faith even if we had some little misunderstanding ourselves but not a real divergence on the fundamental things. One of the points that must be addressed are the pending core unilateral actions of Darklama that I expressed above and find a solution to the 2 book contest that can be worked out, I gave all my input on that topic by now, an engagement with other editors would be great, and special considerations should be given to the final users, the readers.
 * I especially ask that if time allows you to address what is happening with Robert at the moment.
 * Not to end in a bad note but I will circumvent a block if excluded from the final discussion and if no consensual agreement is found to justify it that includes me. (this is a show of god faith and an express attempt to be clear that even if I have no intend in deceiving anyone I will have no other resource if forced into it, this is not a threat, it is only a state of fact, no subliminal text is intended, I stating the contrary would indeed be a lie, sorry if I'm to frontal but that is the way I'm and I don't hide it) --Panic 01:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I will continue to monitor this page and talk with you again in a few days. -- xixtas talk 02:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read your last post to the staff lounge and I don't agree with you on the level of difficulty (it is certainly not equal to all), I came here before I used Wikipedia or other Wikimedia project but most users do the reverse take for instance this post, one of the first made on the project by SB Jhonny.
 * The user was watching in particular my edits and aware of what has been happening as I said above, so generally speaking I don't think it is as strange as that since there is a causal relation. He was at least more or less at the same level of the other user that also seems well informed, he selected 2 of the pages that would call especially my attention, SB Jhonny also was watching and I know you were, so if every body is watching what is strange about it? Was the edit that [complex] ? He made a simple edit reversion any 8 year old could do if pointed to do it. A more experienced user would just do a revert (less typing), but again you are free not to believe me as I engaged on not so dissimilar actions on the past (but consider the context and the edits made and you will see a reasonable difference, never did I use another account to deceive as SB Jhonny was well aware, and the reasons were completely different), as SB Jhonny so loudly has stated on the post "Why??????" would I do it.
 * Another point that we must all understand is that preemptive actions don't work and are particularly prone to generate more problems and to be used as tools to other purposes (in real life and on Wikibooks), all users are free to comment but until a request or statement of unsolvable divergence users should be able and free to resolve issues themselves, this is a rule of thumb that I think no one can contest. --Panic 05:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Panic, asking someone to make an edit on your behalf isn't any better than sockpuppetry (it might even be worse). The edit was "complex" in the sense that for a brand-new user to even know about the multiple TOCs and such, and then have their only edit be switching the redirect.
 * In any case, why don't you guys just provide links to the various TOCs on the main page, rather than having it a redirect? -- SB_Johnny | talk 11:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked him how did he come to notice the change and he said he was reading the book and during a page switch the table of content was missing, And agree that coordination would be sock puppetry but again I didn't ask for the action, for example when you made the post on my talk asking that I apologized to WK were you a meat puppet? The concept is the same. He had no business in doing it but he used his personal judgment to act on it, if we think on who should have done the action it would have to be me or Darklama even the other user was wrong to make the change, why didn't you also reverted that one, why did you reinforce toc2, were you also acting in someones behalf? what was your logic there ? What reason besides you "interpretation" had you to block the user or intervene at all?
 * But anyway I don't think that this is all that relevant as an issue, the concept of sock puppets as a problem is wrong from the start, all users are more or less anonymous and if the concept of consensus was really used, numbers wouldn't have importance, this can even have other implications, for instance in the US some states don't let minors author works, a parent could share his account and get the attribution, another case would be an organization could use it's login to pay several workers to contribute in it's behalf and also get the right attributions.
 * The bottom line is that I or anyone can't be sure that any user is who he states to be in any all cases, we have to rely on the statements we make and have good faith.
 * The problem with multiple tocs is addressed on the conversation I was having with Xixtas, by removing the TOC from the 1st page of the book by adding a cover or a menu, all other pages would have to be moved to another "directory" so to preserve the navigation, and a bifurcation or even more TOCs is not doable in the way that there will have to be a TOC used as the main root, so users can backtrack and select other pages. --Panic 15:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the issue of whether the specific edit was you or a sock puppet or a meat puppet... There is a new problem with lifting the block. Your threat to use sock puppets to get around a block by the community has hardened the positions of those who say you should be blocked indefinitely. This is unfortunate in my view, but this subject must now be dealt with. The offer to specifically affirm the list is still open. But you are gradually digging a hole deeper and deeper and it seems that with every post unblocking you becomes more problematic, not less so. Please read w:WP:SOCK and Meatball Wiki Sockpuppet. Can you see clear to renouncing sock puppetry? It does matter. It matters to a lot of people. -- xixtas talk 23:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

From: Meatball Wiki Sockpuppet "A sock puppet is an additional OnlineIdentity used by someone who already has another OnlineIdentity for participating in a given community, particularly when done in a non-transparent manner and where the identities interact with each other in some way." This leads to the creation of puppet shows no one has engaged on such action that I know of at least explicitly as this is used to get a supporting voice in a discussion or create a fake discussion in a way to drag others into it. I agree that a block due to this type of action is justified, but addressing the problem that lead to it would result in a more definitive solution. From: w:WP:SOCK "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. The Wikipedian who uses a sock puppet may be called a sock puppeteer. Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases. The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption. Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are behaving acceptably." This is a Wikipedia policy has no direct translation to this project, even more because of the goals and particular needs of it. I have in the past seen people defend this policy as problematic (I can hunt the statements), in any case no abuse of the nature described was performed. I have highlighted the parts that address my view and show that even on that policy the text is not prohibitive. But I agree and I think that I have edited the block policy to address it, a block in this situation is also valid if prof of wrong doing is found but I don't see his types of abuses occurring without reason to, as I stated early if consensus is fallowed there is no incentive for anyone to behave like that. I think you are referring to the block situation, but speaking theoretically, in that case the only restriction would be that any new account couldn't be publicly recognized by belonging to the blocked user as it would be blocked, this doesn't mean that a blocked user can't create and use them and that the community can enforce a block without collaboration from the blocked user, a user may even consider a moral imperative to do so or as Xania stated be lead to a situation that all moral barriers and respect for others would go out of the door and lead to real grave problems in that case, only if direct and highly noticed disruption occurred Wikimedia would have to recurse to legal action, and even then it could be hard to deal with it. On the factual side of the discussion, I didn't make a threat, I stated a fact and I have stated it many times in the past and this is public knowledge to be true, an account can be blocked even a IP or a range of IPs but that doesn't mean the human will be blocked as there is no way it can be enforced, what you took for a threat was that after you requested to state that I wouldn't recur to such action in the future, I simply refused to state it as it could become a lie, I could have easily said I would as it would be impossible to verify if I would or not. As I also said previously a block to a non vandal (or automated disruption attempt) can only be enforced by consensual agreement. In a perfect world this problem wouldn't exist as a block would be final, but in a perfect world no need for blocks would exist. In any case there is a flaw on the logic you are applying to the actual problem, the request for statements or declarations are in themselves a lack of good faith, I have stated so before regarding the other imposed statements, even the wish to provide a protection or an attempt to address future problems is wrong as the proper place to do that is on general policy and not on the specific user, since even time isn't a factor and no action is being yet addressed, or the block would be justified. --Panic 00:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, you come out swinging. It is distasteful to me to think that someone that would consider it a "moral imperative" to damage the hard work of others because of their own anger at being excluded from participation. In fact, it makes me sick to think of it. I would not act that way myself if I were faced with the choice, and I honestly don't understand those who would.
 * Instead of "threat" I could have used the word "intent" or even "promise". It was a declaration of intent to act in a way that would be counter to declared interest of the community in a given circumstance. I reject the notion that a human being cannot be blocked. Just because our tools cannot block individuals with 100% effectiveness does not mean that the project cannot block them. This is a limitation of the tools and nothing more. The block that is in effect now is on your person, not your account or your IP address.
 * I confess that I lack faith in your ability to follow the spirit of the rules, use good judgment and interact positively with other Wikibookians. This is not because I did not assume good faith from the outset, it is because of your own actions and words.
 * Have you identified another project that would be a suitable host for a fork of the C++ Programming book where you could work on it without having to interact with the Wikibooks community? This is probably the best chance for a long term resolution to this situation. -- xixtas talk 02:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)