Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2007/March

Transferring material from Wikipedia
I am planning to transfer a significant amount of content from Wikipedia as part of an annotated reference on the game series Xenosaga. This will probably involve the transfer of somewhere from 20 to 40 pages. While there is a procedure for import here, imports take up the time of admins (and to my understanding, a significant amount of server resources as well). Meta provides an alternate procedure, which preserves GFDL compliance by copying the previous edit history to the talk page. Would there be any objections to transferring material directly using this procedure? Seraphimblade 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can tell you to stop before you even begin. Unfortunately it is against practices here to house video game guides. If that content were moved here it would be deleted. Thanks. -within focus 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't be so much a guide, as an annotated reference of the storyline (much like Harry Potter and such). Also, the series is an anime as well as a video game, and has a fairly developed story. Seraphimblade 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Role-playing games are 40-60 hour games, and at least 1/3 of that is spent in cutscenes and dialogue. The books would be plot guides, not video game guides. If you guys don't accept plot guides, then we'll just work with the Wikias. Deckiller 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd be much better off working on one of the Wikias. -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is there some type of guideline as to what type of fiction annotations are allowed? Seraphimblade 23:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure where this whole argument is going here. I think the comparison to the Harry Potter book is perhaps reasonable, although this suggestion is rehashing the video game book arguments all over again.  One thing you should remember, Seraphimblade, is that the decision to remove the video game books was not completely without opposition, and it may be something that will be considered again in the future.  Given the current makeup of active Wikibookians and administrators, I don't see that happening any time in the very near future, unfortunately.  This is a very arbitrary policy regarding video game books, and as such the only reasonable rationale for it is to keep Wikibooks from becoming a major hang-out for people who want to create websites for cheats, walkthroughs, game hint guides, and other material about video games where it may become something of a major emphasis.  Or perhaps to put it another way, serious educators would view such content with contempt and have their opinions tainted with other content such as more traditional subject textbooks like a foreign language or mathematics.  With a huge number of video game books, it was perceived that you would think that is all there is to Wikibooks.
 * My counter argument to this is that the video game books were a very good "training" place for new users, as it was usually quite a bit harder for a serious game fan to make content mistakes that couldn't be easily corrected and verified, and it was a subject that younger contributors not only could relate to, but also were interested in reading about. Several very active Wikibookians, including formerly active administrators, started with the video game guides and later moved on to other projects with Wikibooks.  I would also argue strongly that the growth of Wikibooks, both in terms of the number of new pages of content generated, the number of new users who join the project, and the amount of general internet traffic coming to Wikibooks has suffered significantly since the video game books have been deleted in large numbers.  It hasn't really dropped, but the "spark" that seemed to generate growth seems to be lost now.  --Rob Horning 15:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see that...I also saw that you had the Half-Life Fact File here, and to be quite blunt, anything I write would be done a lot better than that. It would be more in the style of Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter. Also, if one were teaching a video game design class (and those most certainly exist, even at several major universities now), a simple "cheat guide" would not be used, but I could certainly see a summary of successful games, their plot, studies of what's unique about them, and such, being used in class, just as a summary of the plots and unique style of fictional works would be used in a writing class. Seraphimblade 18:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the arguments for removing video game Wikibooks are quite a bit harder to make if you try to make critical commentary about the game design elements, and include aspects that are outside of the direct realm of the game play itself, such as a short history of the game and its influence on subsequent games, the historical impact of the game designers themselves, and what sort of algorithmic strategies have been used within the game (such as AI concepts and UI design). All of those would clearly be used in a game design class.
 * Now the idea of presenting a linearly designed video game as a form of literature is certainly an interesting idea. And Wikibooks does allow annotatation of even fictional literature as you have mentioned above.  I guess I would strongly suggest here that you try to stick with the more literary aspects of the story of the game rather than trying to turn this into a cheat guide, or even a "how to win" guide.  The literary value of most video games would be something that I would also question, but that is something which could also be discussed in such a Wikibook.  --Rob Horning 18:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was certainly not planning a cheat guide. I will stick to the literary aspects, as you suggest, and hopefully it'll be acceptable. Thanks for your help! Seraphimblade 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade, please don't get me wrong, but you're really better off writing this on a site like StrategyWiki. The Harry Potter book is a reader's guide to a culturally signifigant series of books that are read in classroom environments. RPGs (computer-based or not) are perhaps addressed as a phenomenon, but aren't focused on in that way. We recieved some rather clear instructions from the Wikimedia foundation about writing these sorts of books here, and while some users have been vocal objectors to that decision, it's pretty much the law of the land now.
 * StrategyWiki is a great project, with a very supportive community, and your project will be well-supported by SW's active and enthusiastic community. While I hate to discourage any potential Wikibookian, I do want to encourage those who want to make good free content available to all, and I think SW will be a more welcoming and appropriate place for your project. Ask around here for more opinions. -- SB_Johnny | talk 19:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright...I guess I'm not understanding the issue here. I can understand you don't want game guides, walkthroughs, or tip manuals. I wouldn't blame you a bit for deleting that stuff. You want content that might get used in a class. That's exactly what your main content policy says. It's exactly what I'm planning to write. SW really does tend to be more for game guides and stuff like that, I just don't think the work I'm planning to do would be fitting there. I guess I can try it, I was hoping to help out one of WP's sister projects instead. I think I could write quality, appropriate material, but I certainly don't want to step on any toes. Video game design classes and classes which cover fiction do exist, I could certainly write something that would be appropriate for such a class. Seraphimblade 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If the book will be as you have described it then I don't see a problem. Lately people have been nominating things for deletion just for the sake of it which has resulted in the disappearance of some good game guides, many stubs which could have been expanded and other books.  Just because the Wikimedia Foundation told us something doesn't mean we have to stick to it - Wikibooks is owned by the community who use it and without us it would be an empty shell.  It's time people stood up to arbitary decisions by Wiki foundation and took back the community for its users.  I could never bring myself to use StrategyWiki as it is a commercial site and therefore run for profit.  People, especially outside of the USA, don't want yet another commercial website which makes money from your efforts. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I should note it wasn't even the Wikimedia Foundation. It was just Jimbo and a few administrators here (I wasn't one of them!) that felt the books needed to be removed.  There was never any official action on the part of the WMF on this issue, nor was there even any effort to gain "community concensus" other than on a very, very informal basis.
 * I'll admit that Jimbo's words do carry more weight than other users, but even he said this was to be a community decision. Unfortunately this for me has been a losing battle that hasn't been able to get any traction.  Please don't give this any more official aire than this really has... and check the back archives of the Staff Lounge if you don't believe me.
 * There were some efforts prior to the video game guide culling to try and establish guidelines for video game books, but those efforts were completely ignored after the original debate. --Rob Horning 06:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's concern was over the tax status of the foundation as a non-profit, educational organization... the fund drive didn't even meet it's goal, and the last thing we need is to owe 30% of what was brought in to the tax men. I personally wouldn't mind gameguides here, but then I wouldn't mind fiction either. It's not so much an issue of stepping on toes, but rather running contrary to the foundation's mission.
 * Aside from all that, StrategyWiki is also just a very good place for writing game guides (they have other RPG books there as well). Working on them there has the advantage of a community of contributors who have written game guides, and can help you create a better book. -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This had absolutely nothing to do with the 501 (c) 3 tax status of the United States Internal Revenue Code in regards to the Wikimedia Foundation. It was entirely an issue of perception with the educational community and that Jimbo thought that this was merely something that would be "embarassing" and was a criticism of a certain number of individuals outside of the Wikibooks community.  When the tax status issue was raised in the first place, it was refuted immediately.  I challenge you or anybody else here to point out a specific legal case where a book about a commercial product written by a non-profit group voided their non-profit status.  We are all volunteers here, and we do not even accept advertisements.  There is no profit to even be made or money exchanged at all except through the voluntary donation system.  If the issue really is about writing books about commercial products, the ban should go way beyond just video game books as well and be invoked against all commercial products, including Microsoft Office or even Linux (which is a commercial product too!)
 * And as I pointed out when the issue was brought up, invoking the WMF charter was a very weak argument as well, as Wikibooks (and many of these video game books) existed prior to the charter even being written. The charter, as it was written, was to try and explain what it is that we were doing to people (notably the IRS... since you brought it up) that were outside of the Wikimedia Family of projects.  It was never intended to restrict or confine what materials ought to be culled from a project... certainly to the magnitude that the video game guides were removed.
 * While I have nothing against the StrategyWiki personally, it is not a Wikimedia sister project and does not deserve the same consideration or to be treated as a sister project. It is a fork of Wikibooks perhaps, that was caused because this issue about video game guides did become controversial.  There have been other Wiki projects that have tried to "capture" Wikibooks content by way of a fork and then trying to stealthily modify policies to remove a category of content.  The "How-to Wiki" was another one that didn't succeed here.
 * The real point I'm trying to make is that the existance of StrategyWiki is irrelevant to determine if a certain kind of content is considered acceptable here on Wikibooks. They certainly are free to "borrow" and even fork Wikibooks content.  At the moment, you might even be able to argue that they do a better job with video game guides, and they share many users with the Wikibooks community.  I would argue that the reason for that is because they (StrategyWiki) has taken some of our best users and content, and with the cooperation of but a few admins that weren't challenged had that content removed here as well.
 * I also challenge that anybody can find a formal policy vote that conceeded the removal of well over 10% of all Wikibooks content that had widespread support. You can't find it, because the policy changes never really happened.  The books were voted off in piecemeal fashion, and it was assumed that this was policy with several individuals acting under the name of Jimbo doing this.  I would say that this certainly qualifies as a high impact decision as defined by Decision making, yet it was treated as a low impact decision whose final resolution was already met.  --Rob Horning 15:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

video game books, continued (tabs reset)
It was Jimbo, not I, who brought up the tax exemption problems. He certainly knows more about that than I do, and I suspect he knows more about it than Robert does.

It wouldn't matter if we had 100% consensus for including fictional works, how-tos for astral projection, manuals of crime, or video game guides: the foundation defines our mission, and what they say goes. If the foundation decides to ban fair-use images on all projects, we can't include them. If the foundation decides that using wikimedia resources to write textbooks isn't a good idea after all, then we'll just have to go start our own wiki elsewhere. The VGG writers did just that: they started their own site, and good for them! They've been actively preserving all that's been written here, so no efforts have been for naught. They're not a wikimedia foundation website because their mission doesn't fit into the foundation's mission, but that doesn't make them any less our sister project, nor does it mean they deserve any less respect than our foundation sisters.

This horse is dead, please stop beating it. -- SB_Johnny | talk 16:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm getting a bit frustrated here by a lack of response to a point which has been made several times. Video game guides are not at issue here. No video game guide is planned. What is planned is a book regarding the plot, design elements, unique characteristics, and the like, of the game and anime series. I understand video game guides are forbidden. Can someone please answer the issue at hand, which has not a thing to do with video game guides? Seraphimblade 18:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * From Wikipedia: "Xenosaga (ゼノサーガ Zenosāga?) is primarily a series of video games developed by Monolith Soft and published by Namco. Xenosaga's main story is in the form of a trilogy of PlayStation 2 video games" (See Xenosaga).-- SB_Johnny | talk 22:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Any text written by about a video game is not inherently a video game guide by default, as you seem to be implying by pointing out that Xenosaga is, as is obvious, a video game. --Iamunknown 03:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Video games have plots nowadays, especially RPGs with 30+ hours of story cutscenes, two plot databases, an anime series, and so on. The goal of this book will be to cover the plot of Xenosaga and its influences, which are rooted in the works of philosophs like Nietzche, Jung, and others. However, I think the main problem is the length of time it will take to hone the cruft from Wiki into a polished gem here. Deckiller 06:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Johnny, this is not something that was formally determined by the Wikimedia Foundation. This was Jimbo acting on his own, although his status as the Chair of the WMF board of trustees did play a part in the way his words were interpreted.  And while Jimbo did say that he thought there might be some tax problems, that wasn't even the main focus of his argument for deleting the video game guides.


 * To get to the point here, I am not beating a dead horse here. I conceeded back elsewhen that video game walkthroughs should be deleted, or at least didn't find a compelling reason to keep them here.  But I did make a very compelling justification that I thought had community concensus for when a book about Doom could be written that would not be a walkthrough, even though Jimbo mentioned that book explicitly by name as something he would delete on the spot based on the title alone.  In the case of this planned book by Seraphimblade, I think what he is suggesting is indeed something that would help to make that sort of distinction by somebody who is willing to make the effort to write such a book.  --Rob Horning 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, is this a notice board or a talk page? Why are discussions about the history of Wikibooks starting to take over all the functional pages of Wikibooks? Can we please move historical and policy discussions to discussion pages, where they belong? Webaware talk 23:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * reset again!


 * Becasuse this is a policy that has not achieved concensus, yet actions have been taken on it as if that concensus has been achieved. And furthermore, this particular user is being told to "go away, we don't want that stuff here" based on the concept that nearly everything having to do with video games is considered taboo here.  I'm also pointing out that the justifications for this policy are on about as shaky of ground as you can get, even if you can claim that such community concensus was achieved in the first place, and the "Jimbo says" turns this into a religious fight on top of all of the other problems with this concept.  I just don't believe you need to tell people who are trying to add content here in good faith, particularly when there is no formal policy that says you can't have the content here, to pack your bags and move to another Wiki.  --Rob Horning 05:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The question was asked here, so I tried to steer him in the right direction. Regardless of the history of the dispute, the de facto policy has for a long time been to delete this material after it has been transwikied (the StrategyWiki folks list them on VfD after they copy, and watch our VfD page for new material). Doom, for example, is now at SW as well. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course the question here is to ask what is the defacto policy? To delete any content that even resembles a book about any kind of game?  This is why even Chess was suggested for a VfD discussion.  As far as Doom is concerned, this goes back to a comment I wrote that used that particular video game as an example to try and divine just what Jimbo was thinking here.  As can be seen by the rest of the discussion, Jimbo only made one comment which was nearly immediately refuted by concrete example.  I still think a book about Doom would be a very legitimate Wikibook, just not the version that was here on Wikibooks earlier.  --Rob Horning 07:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've started a stub policy at Game Books... perhaps it's about time we decided on a policy regarding this and other books about games. -- SB_Johnny | talk 16:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Rob Horning writes:
 * I think the arguments for removing video game Wikibooks are quite a bit harder to make if you try to make critical commentary about the game design elements, and include aspects that are outside of the direct realm of the game play itself, such as a short history of the game and its influence on subsequent games, the historical impact of the game designers themselves, and what sort of algorithmic strategies have been used within the game (such as AI concepts and UI design). All of those would clearly be used in a game design class.
 * Now the idea of presenting a linearly designed video game as a form of literature is certainly an interesting idea. And Wikibooks does allow annotatation of even fictional literature as you have mentioned above. I guess I would strongly suggest here that you try to stick with the more literary aspects of the story of the game rather than trying to turn this into a cheat guide, or even a "how to win" guide. The literary value of most video games would be something that I would also question, but that is something which could also be discussed in such a Wikibook. --Rob Horning 18:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As a contributor to Wikiversity, I know we do have The School of Game Design and such a book could be used as a textbook and could be very useful to projects like CisLunarFreighter. Anyhow, that is just an aside. --Remi 05:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets
This is getting ridiculous: User:McEwenW00774086 User:McEwen_00774086 Is it just a coincidence we have two pople who's only difference in desired user name is an "_" and a "W"? Many similar names have been created. If you look at the user creation log this trend can be seen, and when Java displayed recent changes are activated, it becomes even more apparent. I can only think of nefarious reasons for having a bunch of usernames that appear to be script generated (considering all the numbers afterwards). However... maybe they are all in a class together and there is some logic behind the number scheme. I just think this is something the admins should definitely take notice of if they already haven't. --Remi 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Those accounts did seem a bit odd at first, but it looks like they all belong to a class project that’s working on Ethnomedicine. And, I think the numbers might be the students class/school ID. Their edits seem ok so I wouldn't worry too much about it (they do have some image tagging issues though). Thanks for the heads up. -- Az1568(Talk) 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Panic2k4 is unblocked
Panic agreed to a conditional unblocking... see his talk page for details. If he returns to bad habits, any admin should apply a brief block to enable a cooling off period, but hopefully this will not be needed. -- SB_Johnny | talk 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking Open proxies
Over the past couple of week Az1568 & I (mostly Az1568!) have been blocking open proxies in accordance with policy. We have done just over 3000. There are a further 11900 to go. Bored admins with time on their hands are very welcome to help out. Take a look at User:Az1568/Proxy. Please make sure you update the records so that we do not attempt to duplicate work. For those to whom it is relevant there is a piece of .js here User_talk:Herbythyme#Re:_Open_proxies. Any queries feel free to ask one of us. Thanks -- Herby talk thyme 10:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have to be an admin to be able to help with this? Urbane User   (Talk)   (Contributions)  16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup. -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Motion to move this topic to the block policy
This topic should be covered on the revised Block policy and archived here. --Panic 00:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm curious. Why? --Iamunknown 01:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be included on the text Blocking Policy (my view). --Panic 01:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree it certainly should. This topic should not, however, be archived there. It is a discussion that took place here at the administrators' noticeboard and, as such (IMO), should be archived here. --Iamunknown 01:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Geez it's late here but I clearly read "archive here" above (where did you got he strange idea to archive it there ?), I said move the topic to continue or provide a base for discussion there. :) I was archiving posts here and this seems a good thing to be included on the policy nothing more, this was a question if anyone thought it was strange, since there was a reference to a policy (again unwritten policies) but I could have missed something... --Panic 01:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move: Introduction --> Template:Naming policy notice
Would an administrator please move Introduction to Template:Naming policy notice, replace the line

with the text

and replace

with

and then type

into Introduction? Then we can apply this template to other pages, like Contents. Thanks — Iamunknown 06:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Handbook templates
re: this edit... I went looking, but couldn't see any discussions. Are the handbook templates being depreciated/discontinued here, or are Meta guidelines alive and well, as I would think they would be? Thanks // Fra nkB 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Our help pages are a mess, really :). We had a few people working on them some months ago, but we've been caught up in other chores lately.-- SB_Johnny | talk 11:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that we aren't copying the "Help" handbook from meta here on Wikibooks. As a result, the "standard" help templates may not be up to date if you are using them somehow for other projects.  If you want to update them, go ahead.  Although keep in mind one of the reasons for abandoning the duplication of help pages from meta was precisely because of all of the nested templates that went with the effort.  You literally needed a 'bot if you wanted to copy and maintain the pages.


 * The VfD Discussion about this topic goes over most of the issues, although there were other areas here on Wikibooks that discussed this topic as well, including the Staff Lounge. The general concensus was to delete the content, particularly by regular Wikibooks editors at the time.


 * The help pages are maintained, but those are Wikibooks-only content that relate to how to start a Wikibook or similar topics. As far as meta guidelines as they apply to sister projects, what guidelines/policies are those?  --Rob Horning 07:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Help!!!
Can someone help me by deleting the old modules of Biblical Studies? I worked on cleaning it up, but I don't know how to delete the old modules. See the bulletin board for info on this book. Tannersf 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All you need to do is add the delete template on each page you wanted deleted, and state that the reason why you need to have it removed. This automatically notifies admins who will do the actual clean-up.  Book cleanup and reorganization certainly is a valid reason to request this.  See also WB:DP for some more details.  --Rob Horning 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Unruly bot
Heads up really - User:FlexBot placing categories on user pages. I've reverted and advised the user on WP. Maybe an issue with folk dunning unapproved bots tho? -- Herby talk thyme 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooh good - another one User:MiszaBot! Not running yet but definitely needs clarification (unless anyone has requested folk to bring bots here) -- Herby  talk thyme 10:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK - odder than I thought. Both bots were placing Belgian cycling categories on user pages.  Both allegedly have WP "owners".  The same IP was used - I smell a rat?  Bots and IP with short blocks for now both other opinions would be really welcome! -- Herby  talk thyme 11:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Now a request to unblock the IP User talk:84.45.219.185. Not inclined too without other views - there are no edits from that IP.  And then "aaaaaH" - check the WP page for the same IP.  Still think someone else should review it tho.  Off to extend the blocks now! -- Herby  talk thyme 11:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks creepy to me. I agree that blocks are all in order. We dont really have a "bots policy" on the books right now, so it's really up to our best judgement to deal with these kinds of things as they pop up. Keep them all blocked, perhaps notify the WP "owners" of the problem. Best case the owners apologize for the mistake, worst case is that these arent even the real owners of the bots! Block them all indefiniately, until somebody starts answering questions. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry should have done an update
 * Vandal bots only and Az1568 had one earlier. Indef blocked.  1 IP with two bots and mention of Willy on Wheels on WP page - blocked 1 month.  Other IP, one bot account, blocked 1 month.  Reviewed by Johnny & myself and alleged WP owners informed.
 * Bot policy. Probably need one
 * -- Herby talk thyme 14:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that a specific bot policy is needed here. If they are being vandals and causing major changes to the structure of Wikibooks without any kind of community concensus, they can and should be blocked.  It doesn't matter if the damage is being done via a bot or by some user with a lot of time on their hands.  Decision making is rather clear about this concept as well.  If there is a problem like this, we need to deal with it like we would deal with any other user... other than as a bot we need to act faster and be more willing to shut them down on at least a temporary basis because of the widespread damage that they can cause.  Of course I hope my attitudes towards 'bots are well known here too, precisely because of the problems that happen when they go amok.  --Rob Horning 15:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea of having a bot policy is larger then just differentiating between types of vandalism. In cases where the intent of the bot is not clear (good vs evil) special consideration needs to be given to these accounts because bots have a larger capacity to do harm, even if the intent of the bot owner is good. A person who is making mistakes in good faith is a far different animal then a bot making mistakes in good faith. If a new user is being rediculous, we can talk to them and fix the problem. If a bot is being rediculous, we really need to block it on sight and contact the operator ASAP. I had previously started a proposal at Bots, but it gathered no attention. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A specific policy is not needed just do some tweaks to the Blocking_policy, it already covers some of those problems of good faith vs bad faith edits and giving a chance to a user to explain itself, all bots are just a special type of sock puppets. --Panic 17:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * reset

Wikimedia licensing resolution
I posted a long message about this on the staff lounge, and I wont repeat myself here. All admins should read the resolution at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy.

Even if we allow for the Fair use policy to be a de facto policy, there is still alot of work that we likely need to start doing. Fair use images without proper rationale need to be either clarified, or deleted outright. Also, fair use images for which there is a free alternative, or a high likelyhood of being able to generate a free alternative should be deleted as well. This is mostly just a warning, I dont think we need to go crazy with deletions just yet. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another puppet show
User:BixoDePalha is another sockpuppet of User:Panic2k4 (confirmed by checkuser, the IP has been used for his main account and another of his "declared" puppets), to make an edit to a page he is in a dispute over. Not sure why he did it (or what to do aside from blocking the puppet, which I already did), but Checkusers should probably keep a closer eye on the C++ book. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can take a wild guess as to why he did it: because he is fundamentally uncivil, and incapable of participating in a collaborative community effort. sock puppetry is an appealing option, if you can't work towards compromise with your fellow authors. I wont say anything else about this now, but it's another bad mark on a record that is likely to come under review again in the future. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, Panic was told on multiple occasions that if another suckpuppet account was used he would be infinitely blocked and that would be the end of it. Several people chose to continue trying to reason with Panic after his first puppets were used, but surprise, surprise, we're back here again. I guess I'll watch another user volunteer to "mediate" this process, but I wish people would finally realize there isn't going to be a solution to this and we sure are wasting a lot of time. Going back to the original arbitration decision, however people may see it, of a long-term block should occur. -within focus 14:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that this behavior goes against the spirit of the unblock agreement. As a matter of fact, it borders on bad faith because it is an intentional attempt to deceive. Personally, I'm very disappointed by this behavior and think that it should result in some kind of punitive action. -- xixtas talk 14:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont think we need a mediator or anything like that. We've played games with panic for a long time, trying to help him, or trying to reform him, or whatever. Attempts to correct this problem have lead to gigantic drains on both energy and morale. Since panic was unblocked last, there have been accusations, both on wiki (which we can use as evidence) and off wiki (which we cannot use as such) of trolling, harassment, personal attacks, and attempting to control the C++ book. All of these things, while open to some interpretation, are violations of the unblock agreement. If action is to be taken against User:Panic2k4 at this point, it is my suggestion that the action be final: i.e. he be blocked indefinitely, without much possibility for return. If the community is uncomfortable with this idea, then I suggest that no action be taken at all, since any action is a waste of time, and panic has demonstrated little potential for improvement in his behavior. If people are interested in pursuing this, we can put it to a vote. Otherwise, we can wait for larger bodies of evidence to mount (which I am certain they will) and act on the issue then. No more games though, we do it or we do not. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What would be the point in an indefinite block (without the possibility to return)? If that happened to me then I would just get really pissed off and start creating new accounts all the time and go to even further extremes to hide my presence and disrupt the project.  Has anyone tried asking Panic why he created the account?  Why was a checkuser done on that account and are you checkusering all accounts or just those we suspect might be used by Panic? Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For you to suggest such things is inappropriate. If you want to make Panic into a vandal then that's your choice, but if he was mature he would realize the finality of this block by our power here. Insinuating that Panic will become a nuisance (after blocking) is a very negative view and should not bias the block action. Even if Panic were able to do something entirely disruptive which I highly doubt he can or will, he would be treated like a vandal and handled rather easily like all are here. Panic knew the consequences and by how the evidence strongly suggests it he made a slip. If I were to take some of his story as true, I would hold myself liable for actions taken on my LAN since that's my problem to maintain it. The "coincidence" of this story is staggering nonetheless.
 * Should you attempt to find a solution to this yet again, please view the terms of Panic's unblocking. It seems (or Panic has accused) that I was the complaining user and Xixtas the blocker, so either one of us must fully retract our support for the block, two admins must request the unblock with no opposition, or a majority of admins support an unblock. I believe, although it is not fact, that none of those options can be accomplished as of now. -within focus 00:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My only point with this is that we are playing a game with it. Panic is blocked, then he is unblocked, and then blocked again. Furthermore, people here are all taking turns at "being in charge" of the issue, a process to which there is no rhyme nor reason. If there is any unfairness, it's not to panic (who has arguably gotten more "second chances" then he probably deserves), but instead it is to the wikibookians who are actually dealing with the problems that Panic causes. After all the arguing and yelling and mediating previously, Panic still participated in edit wars on at least two pages in the C++ book. And it's not panic who is cleaning up this mess, nor people who are in general defense of him. SBJohnny and myself, along with a few other users are dealing with these problems on a daily basis, wasting time that could otherwise be spent on writing new book content, improving policy, or helping new users. Yesterday I had to protect a page that was the subject of an edit war, both by panic, but also by a sockpuppet of panic. I'm tired of playing these games with panic, and many of the people who have been dealing with him up till this point are tired of it too. If you are interested in taking over this nonsense, Xania, and following panic around with a dustpan and broom cleaning up his every mess and monitoring his every post, you can be my guest. Once you've tired of the nonsense too, maybe we can get enough support to block him. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot get past the fact that this was a small thing and easily rectified. Panic should not be blocked permanently for this event, IMO. I have spent some time looking at the logs, and it is undeniable that his behavior is much improved since the unblock agreement. But I am still not satisfied with his responses. He came out swinging instead of just simply owning the problem. That wasn't what I was hoping for, but it also wasn't totally unexpected. I am trying hard not to let this escalate and begin to effect everyone's morale. -- xixtas talk 01:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (reset) Well, i'm not going to push the issue any further. People want to unblock panic, and so he will eventually be unblocked. I certainly wont stand in the way of that. All i want is people here to realize the pattern of events that follow panic. The people who want panic to be unblocked should be the first to volunteer to help with the situation. Panic does come out swinging, and that requires "help" and "intervention". What people can't say is "I want panic to be unblocked, but I dont want to be involved in the resultant problems". Wikibooks is about the creation of textbooks, and there comes a time when the actions of a user, no matter how good his intentions, disrupt or prevent that goal entirely. Constantly playing this game with panic prevents other wikibookians from writing our books, and more people should find that to be unacceptable. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not interested in withdrawing my complaint, so if this block is to be removed again you'll need to take one of the other paths for unblocking. I don't need time to cool down for a few days or whatever else is being suggested on Panic's talk page nor do I find it appropriate to threaten the solution process with circumventing the block, I've just come to a decision on the matter (and have held this opinion for quite some time). I won't be engaging in lengthy discussions on the matter either so if you're going to discount me then please do so, because although I'll defend my statements to a certain degree here I'm not motivated enough to argue this for probably the fifth time. Thanks. -within focus 02:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Withinfocus, I respect your opinion and believe I understand where you are coming from. I am not going to ask you to withdraw your complaint. Nor do I expect you to change your opinion. I do not expect anyone other than me to take any action whatsoever. -- xixtas talk 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I may someday grow tired of Panic Withinfocus but I'll never reach the stage of wanting him blocked. What will that achieve? This is the Internet and you're not going to make problems disappear just by blocking people from the project. Infinite bans are as pointless as the USA's "3 Strikes and You're Out" law - do we really want Wikibooks to be as petty as US politics? Also to say that you are 'not interested in withdrawing your complaint' or willing to 'engage in lengthy discussions' is ridiculous. If you want someone banned then be prepared to argue and discuss the issue - all decisions on Wikibooks should be explained and open to discussion and if you're not prepared to do this then the block is not valid. Xania talk 20:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to discuss the block with you Xania. Withinfocus didn't place the block. I did. The issue he complained about was legitimate. He has explained in the past why he thinks Panic should be blocked, there is no need for him to rehash it if his opinion has not changed. -- xixtas talk 20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing the point, Xania. Blocking panic isn't pointless, having to spend every day babysitting him and cleaning up after him is the pointless exercise here. I'm not a babysitter, and I don't think that you are either. And even if you are a babysitter, you don't come to wikibooks to babysit, you come here to write textbooks. Where is it written that we are all-accommodating, or that we are all-tolerant? We are here to write textbooks, not deal with trouble makers, or even to make some kind of anti-american political statement. Answer me this question: How does keeping disruptive users around help us to write more or better textbooks? How does the project benefit from panic's presence here? And for that matter, why do we block anybody? why do we block vandals, if not to protect the project? We do block people here when they are disruptive to this project, and I see no reason why panic should be exempt from that fact. Panic isn't a bad person, but it's painfully clear that he simply doesnt participate in the way that he needs to. It's a waste of time for both him and us to keep going through these cycles of blocking and unblocking. That people are so insistant in panic's defense is mind boggling to me. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For those of you who are interested, I have reconstructed the conversation related to Panic's most recent block on the page Block of Panic2k4 20070328 Archive. You can read the discussion more easily there if you wish. (Not that I'm recommending it.) ;) -- xixtas talk 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point Whiteknight. We are not here to babysit and when we permanently exclude someone from the project we will likely piss them off to the extent that they'll decide to piss the project off too by creating new accounts and new ways to be annoying. When we block someone all we do is block that username (and their present IP). There are millions of ways around these blocks and the trouble that a blocked user might cause is much worse than what they might have caused if we hadn't implemented a petty block in the first place. I'm not saying that Panic would do such a thing but many users would if they are determined to remain a "part of" Wikibooks. Xania talk 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What you are saying is that Panic is a common vandal, and that's unacceptable. Panic has stated on a number of occasions that he is not a vandal, that he acts in good faith, and that he does not want to cause harm to the project. I dont know why you keep trying to push the theory that panic will magically become a vandal if he is blocked. I think that is the most insulting thing that anybody here could be saying about panic right now, and something that I am certain he wouldnt want to hear. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys and gals, this is getting old (I'd say it's getting silly, but we crossed that threshold long ago). We need a reality check here: Panic is a troll, plain and simple. He wants to be the center of attention, and keep us from doing what we came here to do, and despite the fact that I find him amusing and admire his spunk, he's still a troll.

Right now Panic is wondering if xixtas will be gullible enough to unblock him even though he said plainly on his talk that he will use sockpuppets to override his block. He has been canvassing new administrators to "fix problems" with the C++ book, hoping that those administrators won't know that those "technical problems" are in fact just editorial disputes. The word "troll" (in the internet sense) apparently derives from "trawling for suckers", and there's really no doubt that that's what he's doing.

"Assume good faith" is an excellent maxim, but it should not be interpreted to mean "respect the troublesome individual over the health of the community". Trolls exist, I've met quite a few of them on web forums, and I know one when I see one. Panic's behavior really is a classic case, and the fact that the problems he creates are on talk pages (which are essentially small web forums) should open our eyes to this.

"Assume good faith" is a rare maxim, and it sets us Wikimedians apart from the "creepy" part of the internet. I understand perfectly why people would defend a troll and condemn a vandal, because trolls are sophisticated mischief-makers who balance their mischief-making with intelligent and helpful contributions. Hovever: the past few months of upheaval provides perfect evidence of why a troll is more dangerous than any vandal could be (when a vandal becomes a troll it can become even more dangerous... I'll look for a link to exhibit the worst case scenario), because trolls fracture the community, rather than simply making a nuisance of themselves.

So I'll say for the record: I strongly object to unblocking Panic. Yes, he'll just make sockpuppets and go around the block, but it seems that he uses sockpuppets even when he isn't blocked, so not much of a difference there. He'll use the sockpuppets to edit C++ -- and those edits will likely be constructive, -- but when he gets on talk pages he'll do what he's always done, and we'll have a new sockpuppet to block. Containing sockpuppets is a simple maintenance issue, and Herby and I can take care of that: give me a maintenance nightmare or a weekly upheaval of the project, and I'll gladly settle for the maintenance nightmare.

I'm very tired of this game, and a lot of others are tired too. Other projects have had problems like this, but they don't let it tear them apart. We shouldn't let someone take advantage of us, and we should all be ashamed of ourselves for letting it go on for so long. He's trawling for suckers, and we need to stop playing into his idea of a good time. -- SB_Johnny | talk 00:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Whiteknight you are twisting my words. I never said Panic would do such things although I would completely understand if he did. He may be 'trawling for suckers' but if so he's certainly found them. What exactly has he been banned for and how serious is it really? Who requested the block? Xitas implies that "The complaint I acted on was brought by withinfocus on the administrators notice board" however I couldn't see where withinfocus actually requested Panic's blocking. Panic has given satisfactory excuses for this incident yet we are assuming the worst as always and the "terms" that he agreed to seem wholly unfair (although Panic agreed to them) and we wouldn't use these terms for other Wikibooks users. Xania talk 00:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Xania, for the record, whiteknight and I both agreed to the same terms. I have not asked Panic to do anything that I am not willing to do myself. If you cannot see where withinfocus asked for a block then I have no explanation other than to suggest reading glasses. Panic's excuses are wholly unsatisfactory and implausible. The chances of things happening as he has stated approach 0. I will admit that it is not strictly impossible. However it is unlikely beyond a reasonable doubt. How does a person who has never made an edit on Wikibooks before decides that an edit made by a much more experienced editor needs to be reverted, figures out which of the three different possible index pages is the best one to use, finds the location of that page, figures out how to revert an edit on a redirected page, and reverts the edit (all in the span of 12 minutes). We would all have to be incredible fools to believe Panic's explanation. I can only assume that you haven't actually checked the logs yourself, or haven't really thought about how that brand new user would have had to have acted in order to make Panic's "explanation" true.

Guys, let's just cool off for a couple days. It's scenes just like this one that make this process so damaging. -- xixtas talk 03:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)