Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2009/February

User:Dick head
Inappropriate user name.... an Admin might like to consider if it should be blocked now (currently no contributions)

Unusual? Quite TalkQu 12:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I considered. I blocked. Thanks for pointing that out. --Jomegat (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Collection loader fix
The message MediaWiki:Coll-bookscategory should be set to "Collection". This will fix the collection loader. Stored collection pages now automatically include a Template:saved_book at their beginning. Therefore you might also want to change MediaWiki:Coll-savedbook_template. He!ko (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing IP Vandalism
From 92.43.64.78

You might like to block...

Unusual? Quite TalkQu 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Stopped now after an hour... probably nothing needed now. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 12:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

24h block of User:Panic2k4
Panic has over the past ~5 months persisted in disruptive argumentation regarding this request for administrative action for which there is no consensus. In fact, it seems there is a consensus that there is no consensus about what action to take on that issue. Several administrators have told him on several occasions that he should drop the issue until there is consensus among the book contributors and/or the wider community regarding what to do about the C++ table of contents.

During those months, Panic has persistently argued contrary to consensus that administrative action is required (and bizarrely, that there is consensus to take administrative action - consensus is exactly the opposite), including un-archiving the section, and fooling our archive bot into leaving the section up long past it's normal lifespan (you can see here I undid that trick - since the bot relies on timestamps, the year 3008 means the section would never get archived).

Today, Swift tried to end this nonsense by closing the "request" and setting it to archive normally - Panic reverted this. I reverted, leaving him a clear message that this must end; he reverted again. I reverted, giving a final warning, which Panic failed to heed, so I've blocked him for 24h to prevent further disruption to this page.

This is for other administrators to review the block (though it is only 24h long), and to review the underlying issues of conduct (including my own, which involved minor edit warring). At this point, I have no opinion on whether the block should be removed, lengthened, or some other option - suggestions for ways forward are welcome. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just an additional note that Panic has already placed an request providing the reason "Abuse of the categorization of disruptive behavior, I have the right to response calling or using the form of disruptive behavior to prevent objection to action or silence opposition is abuse of administrative power." I'd encourage discussion & consensus here before further action.  &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 20:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the decision to block. In light of User:Panic2k4's edits I would suggest continuing the block until Panic2k4 agrees to leave the section alone. --Swift (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My full support. This isn't anything new, it's classic bad-Panic behavior. He bullies and harasses his fellow editors until they leave in despair, and then he claims consensus because all people who have objected to his ideas have been forced to leave. You do not get what you want because you've harassed all the people who disagree with you until they leave. You cannot manufacture consensus though this type of guerrilla warfare. We have preious few editors and authors, and we should all be saddened when anybody is forced to leave this project through harassment and bullying like this. Beyond that issue, you cannot force an admin to take any action at all: we are not robots and we do not click our buttons when commanded to. If you ask an admin to unprotect a page and they choose not to, the discussion is over: you cannot force the admin to act, even if you harass them diligently over the course of several months. I support Mike's 24hr block, and I would support a significantly longer block as well if somebody felt the need to implement it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated below Mike.lifeguard is largely exaggerating and twisting the facts. I know there is no love lost between us Whiteknight, but indeed you seem to jump at every opportunity to suppress opposition to what is from the beginning a poisoned and indefensible issue, your lack of ability to recognize your limitation and even errors is appalling, in that I'm a better man here, since I did and do recognize my own errors. Our personal divergence is primarily based on core policy issues and procedures but your inability to recognize yours (and others) application of a dual standards as a weapon makes us antagonists, while I'm able to deal and contest your approach you seem impelled to disregard even common sense to get rid of me, this is not being inclusive and beneficial to the project. Even if you disagree with my viewpoints I deserve the same consideration than yourself.
 * "He bullies and harasses his fellow editors until they leave in despair...", this is false statement, if you are referring to Paddu his statement is still present on wikibooks, that didn't take during the arbitration also, in any case I'm here since 2004 if I'm such a pest I should already have lots of "normal" Wikibookians after my hide, since I do tend to provide the opportunity for anyone to support your claims, sadly what we see is that only a handful of admins that aren't even contributors (I mean of content), even Darklama has a bone to pick with me since I started to object to giving the him admin flag (you can calculate how sorry I am I changed my mind on that, on your request), since he used the tools to cause all this freaking mess... --Panic (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * reset

"Panic has over the past ~5 months persisted in disruptive argumentation regarding this request for administrative action for..." "During those months, Panic has persistently argued contrary to consensus that administrative action is required..." - This are false statements there was no continued action, I merely objected to the 2 attempts of archiving the request for administrative action and at those times, no active action of my part was made on that issue. --Panic (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the first. Panic has persisted in argumentation. He has been disruptive, but maybe not persistently so throughout these five months.
 * As for the second, the four participants who touched on the issue (User:Mike.lifeguard, User:Darklama, User:Whiteknight and User:Swift) all agreed that there wasn't a basis for the requested administrative action. --Swift (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't see your defense of Mike's actions (and don't fully understand why you are defending other people actions), but will address it, btw this format is freaking hard to navigate and post due to the size of the thread. The points you make is about the present action 1 revert and an attempt to comment on the close action can't be defined as disruptive to the project. Not even to the discussion since it was stalled...
 * Administrative Action is required on the basis that a proposal was advanced and formally approved and is up for implementation (whatever concerns are raised on the above discussion fall to ground since the proposal was first advanced to resolve the inability of admins to fallow the same or similar rules they now claim necessary or best practice), this is an oblique approach to the problem, there are several other methods left to see the issue resolved, since no one seems to want to to deal with the issue directly.  --Panic (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"...it seems there is a consensus that there is no consensus about what action to take on that issue." - This is a contradictory statement, nonsensical and in line with a post above by Mike.lifeguard "I see a consensus among several administrators that the issue is ended - you're simply disrupting the project at this point.", objection to this kind of logic seems obvious.... This also makes the subsequent phrase null "Panic has persistently argued contrary to consensus that administrative action is required..." since there is no consensus to start with, more Mike.lifeguard seems to disregard that consensus is only archived by discussion or lack of it (but removing or silencing a party consensus is not archived). --Panic (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement is not contradictory. The "no consensus about what action to take on that issue" refers to the issue raised by Panic on the C++ talk page. The "it seems there is a consensus..." refers to Panic's request to administrative assistance.
 * I can't see any better than that Mike's comments are grammatically well formed and free of spelling errors. His opinion should be obvious to anyone willing to understand his point of view. --Swift (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The issues are one and the same in any case I haven't decontextualised the quotes. The nonexistence of consensus is be default a lack of consensus I don't blame you for not making sense of the phrases I can't also  "regarding this request for administrative action for which there is no consensus. In fact, it seems there is a consensus that there is no consensus about what action to take on that issue." clearly is referring to the request for administrative action. One could argue that Mike was attempting to state something on the lines of "we agree to disagree" but consensus implies more that an agreement it implies non disagreement...
 * I still feel funny replying to you reply to my reply to Mike's actions, thought processes and the utter mess he made of the issue. But you put me in a position on having to reply to you, and next probably to Mike. --Panic (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"...including un-archiving the section, and fooling our archive bot into leaving the section up long past it's normal lifespan..." - This is misleading there was no attempt to fool the bot (the bot is not a human) and my comment and further talk with Swift made it clear that I wasn't attempting to elude anyone, but working in good faith to preserve an open issue on the table. PS: I strongly object that the Administrative Assistance page being automatically archived since the bot isn't capable of detecting open and closed issues, it only detects that posts have not been replied to in 30 days. --Panic (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This may be a semantic difference. Not only people can be fooled. Nor is there an implicit allegation of malicious intent. --Swift (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I take "fooling" as implying malice, just because the root of the word "fool", to make a fool of some one or indicating mischievous action for kicks or profit, and it is derogative to my person (not the bot), I can admit that it probably wasn't a conscious attempt of attack, and I didn't take it as such but it is indeed conductive to associations, that I was attempting to elude or make some action illusive, a better wording could easily have been used.  --Panic (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

''"Today, Swift tried to end this nonsense by closing the "request" and setting it to archive normally- Panic reverted this." '' - This is misleading, it makes an assumption on the motive of Swift's action (we can only work based on the previous history and edit comment), there was similar action previously, one were I explained my objection to the archival of the open issue (and Swift didn't object to), this last edit comment stated "This issue is months old now. I'm closing this. There is evidently no consensus." is correct but Swift shouldn't close unresolved issues, the only way to archive consensus is by discussion and the request is open ended it isn't only to present administrators but to future ones also, the request isn't the problem the problem is what lead to the request, extinguishing this request will not address the underlaying problem, and so I (again) reverted Swift edit. PS: I've been talking to Swift privately on the issue and since this was the second "reversion" he understood my objection to the archival. --Panic (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC) The sequence of revert actions and the taking part on those reversals by Mike.lifeguard isn't fully explained and is incorrectly stated, the last reversal wasn't a reversal (or the last two, whatever you count as a reversal, I didn't "revert" Mike.lifeguard's edits), but Mike.lifeguard prevented me to add a reply inside the boxed statement (1 reversal) I made one outside of the box (2 reversal), there was no real edit conflict (if we discount Mike.lifeguard's attempts to impede me to reply to his closing statement). --Panic (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is neither misleading nor does it make any assumptions of my motives beyond what I stated in my edit and summary.
 * "Swift shouldn't close unresolved issues" It wasn't an unresolved issue. Every administrator that had touched this for five months had resolved that the request should not be granted.
 * I think you're the only one who interprets this page that way. You are free to raise the issue with individual administrators or here again at a later date once you feel the atmosphere has changed.
 * Even if I didn't noticed your post (and don't know if Mike saw it also, since we never restored it), and due to your own actions on the subject, and since someone just pointed that I may have been set up on all of this (again), I request that you make good on your own intentions to address the issue, since there is yet again, a strange coordination of actions, you make the first edit, removing the lock on the bot, we reach an understanding that I don't what the issue closed undressed, you contact me privately (feel free to post our conversation, without personal information) stating a wish to attempt to resolve the issue, I agreed to give all information you may require from the beginning or the end of the underlaying issue (being the end the request for administrative action) and you came and close the issue without a further word to me, this seems to you normal or being in any way helpful? I now see it all as very bizarre even more after Mike's intervention in the extremes, the block and all this fuzz about a discussion that was stalled for so long, and now you are taking an active part defending not only Mike's over the top actions, abusive declaration and being yourself extremely confrontational with me, what is the response you expect of me in all this ?
 * I'm calm and am able to address any issue, if you feel you need a timeout please take it and consider it all calmly, and if you wish to address the C++ Programming issue then I'll be available (even to admit to more errors on my part). --Panic (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There are several issues wrong with this block, things that were previously understood as bad practice on performing a block:
 * 1) ) block comments should be extremely well thought, and carefully written since it goes into a permanent log, even if I object to the rational behind the action, this last block has an error on the comment, "persistent disruption on WB:AN" should be "persistent disruption on WB:AA", this is the stated reason for this bock action.
 * 2) ) Mike.lifeguard block on what he interpreted as disruption is by default wrongly stated (as countered above) and was badly addressed, I did not engaged in any revert war (commonly established as a violation of the unwritten 3RR), I did "revert" Swift edit but the user (an admin himself) did not state any opposition to my action nor did he revert it back, if any, the actions of Mike.lifeguard should be themselves be classified as disruptive and uncalled for, ultimately an abuse of his admin flag.
 * 3) ) I did not engage in blatant vandalism, uncivil action or any other reason the would require a block action without previous warning stating a block as a possible outcome, the above post that Mike.lifeguard seems to understand as a proper warning was done in parallel with the actions he seems to object but be partial to, and wrongly stated on the "warning", the only time I unarchived the still open request was when the bot first archived the unclosed issue making "Continually bringing it back is disruptive." a twisted viewpoint of the facts, at most I have been exerting normal efforts to keep the request opened since the underlaying problem was not resolved and in reality causes problems to the project (since the book is among the  the most actively used works here), and several Wikibookians (users, not editors) have stated a wish to have the navigational/structural problem resolved, this is the goal of the request still pending...  --Panic (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ) Block comments should ideally be indicative of the block motive. I see no problem with this latest one. Both WB:AA and WB:AN redirect to the same page.
 * ) The block statement isn't about a revert war, but a persistent disruption.
 * The history of this is: After spotting that the Administrators' discussion index wasn't being updated properly, I fixed what I thought was a mistake, Panic reverted that and contacted me about it. We later discussed this and other related issues on IRC and I decided to look into this seemingly unresolved matter. After reviewing the issue and reading up on whatever relevant information I could find, I closed the issue with a summary of my findings. Panic reverted this, removing my comment. Mike re-closed it more explicitly but Panic undid that as well. So, it didn't start out as disruptive, but surely ended that way.
 * ) I disagree with your notion that these efforts of yours are "normal". --Swift (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right on point 1 I didn't open the page (the redirect is there), sorry about it, but it is nevertheless confusing.
 * On point 2 I never claimed it was a revert war (just to the contrary) and that it wasn't a disruption at least I don't think altering a single char (warning) is in any way a continued disruption of the project (sorry about your closing post, I've covered that below), or that I can't express my objections in or after the closing of an issue on the same thread (block). Do you agree with the disruption argument? Was I being disruptive (characterized by unrest or disorder or insubordination) to the project ? Not to him or you, I'm no subordinate and know of no any special authority possessed by admins, I'm not obligated to agree or silently comply with others actions, and we (Mike and me) haven't swamped a word on this more than it stated on that discussion. I'm however free to express my discontent and opposition to the action, this was what Mike blocked me from.
 * On point 3 (Panic reverted this, removing my comment[10]) I hadn't seen your post at the bottom (only the change of the number and the edit's comment), nor was my intention to remove it, I've only noticed that I removed it now, it was indeed a mistake on my part and I acknowledge it. Had Mike talked to me or reverted my revert I probably would have noticed it (and would never revert a revert, without a deep discussion) but Mike's "Not happening. Panic: this means you." edit (he also didn't restore your post at the end of the discussion, don't know if he noticed it also) just rose to my nose and I never checked back, in any case this doesn't invalidate that Mike's intervention was not called for, since you would have called me on it, or I would come to see it, anyway I was going to talk to you about it), if any disruptive action to the project occurred it was Mike's uncalled for and clearly over the edge intervention and the way he has gone about it.
 * In any case mea culpa on missing your post...
 * You also overstate somewhat my actions (but Panic undid that as well[12]), I didn't undo or revert, I moved his comment up and added my response, and you are missing two reverts of Mike, one to that (12) and another one after I added the reply to the bottom of the thread, this is just to be complete about the script.
 * On point 3 how do you keep an issue on the table then? Would you have me adding to that thread each 28 days, or repost a request each 3 months ? --Panic (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Confusing"? No, it's not. It's very simple to check what it was that Mike was referring to.
 * Then you shouldn't have brought it up! Mike certainly didn't accuse you of any such behaviour. Stop this unrelated verbiage trying to paint yourself as some sort of victim of injustice.
 * "mea culpa"?
 * "mea culpa"?
 * So the reason for this whole mess is that you made a mistake? And you think this is somehow a defence for your action? And this after the link to the diff has been presented four times already in relevant discussions, even on your own userpage (where another comment specifically refers to it and doesn't make sense if there wasn't one) and you're only noticing it now?!
 * I'm starting to see the pattern here. You seem to go through these discussions living in some sort of a fantasy world where other people's opinions aren't worth paying any close attention to, at the same time writing your long-winded, often obscure dribble which numerous people have found misleading. Misleading because you don't seem to have a very firm grasp of what's going on around you.
 * You had better take a long, hard look in the proverbial mirror, Panic. Unless you re-examine how you interact with others and take to heart some of the criticisms that have been raised against you this is bound to happen again. When it does, you'll find yourself without many friends to back you. And that is not because you've failed to play politics; paying homage to the almighty admins or trade favours. No, every person I know of that has interacted with you and observed how you work has independendly concluded that you're damaging the project. --Swift (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * reset so it is easier to read.

I didn't check (the link), I only read it and concluded that AN is different than AA (I'm not an admin so I'm not to familiar with the new names). I could have checked but didn't, but I didn't make a great deal out of it only pointed to it being an issue (and personally I do think it's confusing and don't see the advantage of pointing to a redirect)... I don't understand why you are doing such a grand production of this I do acknowledge your right to be as disgusted as you like by me having reverted your edit and having lost your post, I already acknowledged that error and expressed my regret for that loss, but I don't see it as a valid motive for Mike (or even you as the one I could have offended) to execute a block because of it... On the other hand you are again overstating my words «"mea culpa" on missing your post..."» is just that an acknowledgment of my error or guilt on that issue, maybe you are confusing it to "mea ultima culpa" but in any case I'm not acknowledging any special guilt or admitting that my actions validated in any way the exaggerations of Mike and now yours (even if you have a reason to be annoyed at me for that lapse, this is just going over the edge), even after I clearly admitted to the deeds and been clear about it (I said I would do it, I just human and this is not my full time job), but I will only go as far as promising to be more careful next time and consider giving your name to my first born but no further... "every person I know of that has interacted with you and observed how you work has independendly concluded that you're damaging the project." this is a grave accusation, and I would like you to address that issue, I did have my bad moments (heck I've been here since 2004, I would be surprised if you haven't got into anyone bad side at times also, I know other people have), even so I don't see myself as special or particularly dangerous Wikibookian. beside engaging people on issues I think as important whatever they are, first was the need to support multiple books on the same subject, even book renames due to special chars and the colon and the other convention so yes I've been around and I do know exactly were things could have gone better (on my side of the argument and on the other users side). I doubt any other Wikibookian has had his actions as thoroughly examined as mine, they even got to Paddu (my first argument on Wikibooks), had the book in VfD, WK called all the stated copyright authors on it the full service one can get here. I have no problems looking at the mirror, I've always been consistent and as clear as I can, nothing to hide or second intentions, but I still think that you didn't act correctly on closing the unresolved issue and your support and encouragement of Mike's actions on this issue, especially after we talked about it, to fully comprehend my frustration about your action I remind your initial message to me as interested in resolving the core problem. Any sane person sees and I've stated many times before that this festering issue originated from a abusive action. An admin knowing that I objected to the action, unprotected the cover page, moved it and made changes the edit histories of both pages, this during a time I was being unlawfully blocked due in part to some interactions with the same admin on actions on the same book. Of note is that previously to this events I did object granting the admin flag to that same admin. I can't understand how those actions can and have been so long supported and my and other Wikibookians request for restoration ignored, but again as I stated before I'll drop the issue for another year or so... --Panic (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of guessing or assuming you know what Mike.lifeguard meant by "there is consensus that there is no consensus", why not ask him for clarification? I think the intended meaning was that a) those who responded to your request all agreed that you had failed to prove that consensus had been established to change the state of the C++ book, b) by agreeing that you have failed to prove your request a valid one, consensus has been established to deny your request, c) by denying your request a decision has been reached and your request responded to in the negative as ❌. No further response or action is required when a decision is that nothing is to be done, but don't respond to me, ask Mike.lifeguard, if you think I am wrong about what Mike.lifeguard meant. Undermining a decision is disruptive and that is what I (and probably others) see you as having done. --dark lama  19:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do believe that he is reading (or ignoring this thread) he is free to do as he wishes, I don't see any reason to engage him personally, beside my first comments, specially since I'm a bit mad about his actions on this, a simple talk to me would have avoided it all, so I will avoid to talk to him on this subject too.
 * On a) I have argued that consensus was archived by lack of opposition (I think you have argued otherwise but you and most community process have always worked as I describe it so the point is not defensible, I think you haven't argued contrary to this)
 * On b) if my request is in any way invalid no one stated where or how besides pointing a).
 * On c) no one denied anything beside to act on the request, this is not the same as denied the request, to have the request denied one would have to prove something is wrong with the process that lead to the request (no argumentations concluded that), I wouldn't even require a consensus if someone pointed out a that the process was invalid (and acted on it, that includes any and all similar actions taken previous on the same mold, I don't see anyone wanting that or even sustainable therefore we have, this lets do nothing situation), and here we are because point b) and a) was never addressed beyond the introductory section or with any conviction (and support in practice and especially by actions of the Wikibookians defending them, another impossible situation), what we have here is a catch22 (the motivation for this state of things is even a greater problem for me, and what really motivates me on this issue more than the problem the situation causes to the book or the project), since your initial action was objectionable under the normal practices or you disagree with that point? If you can support or justify those actions with any valid logic I'll quit pushing for a solution. If not revert them and we are done that is all I'm requesting from the start. It all falls to you granting me the same right and respect you call to yourself, I objected and you forced the issue, strangely you got away with it... In any case at a personal level I do believe that you agree that the situation itself is of no benefit to anyone. --Panic (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I left you a note which you pointedly ignored while reverting the thread. At the time it was originally opened, several administrators, myself among them, told in no uncertain terms that we were not going to fulfil your request, and we gave our reasons. That several of us all concluded the exact same thing (that no action should be taken) constitutes a consensus which you have repeatedly failed to accept. The idea that you can simply propose the same thing multiple times without taking into account previous disagreement is a bizarre reversal of the concept of consensus.
 * The current situation regarding the book is a problem, however that doesn't necessitate doing "something, anything" - instead, it requires gaining consensus to do one particular thing (vs other possibilities). This has been exactly what multiple administrators have told you since you placed the request, and it hasn't changed. Bring me a conversation that shows appropriate consensus to do some particular thing about the situation, and I'll do it. Until then, asking for the same thing for which there is no consensus (and multiple administrators agree that there is no consensus to do it) is disruptive. Ultimately, this refusal to accept that you need to gain consensus on this issue, and persistence in making repeated requests contrary to consensus is the disruption that brought us here. I think you will find that the community has limited patience for this sort of nonsense. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 20:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We all understood that all admins that expressed any opinion on the discussion refused to address the issue (not only the proposal itself but the problem behind the proposal, we all understood it and that is why it was stalled, I never refused to address the issue). I think I stated there, that this was an approach to the issue that would save face to all parties (if not directly here I stated that on Darklama's talk page I even reshaped the solution to cover James objection to the aborted VfD) the simple fact that we are talking about the issue demonstrates that nothing is closed or can remain unaddresse, since the issue does need of a solution, hence my opposition to closing the request.
 * None of the reasons advanced for the refusals to take action were valid, just because people opted out from taking action or continue the dialog the problem still prevails, nor does it give any party an upper hand on the subject, since all arguments given to maintain the situation had any real merit, but that is stated above so I will nor rehash it here, no response was given to my last arguments (as can be seen above), since the positions taken are indefensible, if we do require a consensus to take action then the original sin was done without consensus (and we get to a circular logic based on dual standards, what should be valid now should have been valid since the beginning of the base problem). It isn't even my intention to establish blame since we all had a part on it. I do recognize my errors even on dealing with you on the speedy deletion issue and the way I attempted to corner you, by strong arguments into a indefensible situation were you wrongly but within your rights attempted to pass it along to a VfD (both agreed that it would cause more problem, especially due to James asynchronous participation on it and agreed to abort that procedure, even under objections of another Wikibookian), I fully understand, and I'm sorry to have caused you some stress at that time, and do recognize you did attempt to engage the issue even if you ultimately failed to act acordingly to normal procedure.
 * The problem can now be addressed only from the beginning or the backwards.
 * Was the initial action of Darklama consensual and in accordance to normal practice or in any way productive? Clearly not.
 * Should the last book proposal to resolve the issue be considered valid? I do think so, it has been valid in the past, even Darklama used that same formal procedure in a very similar way (to remove the old navigational scheme for instance, were the other party was absent) since the normal decission process only requires objection not participation. The above advanced theory that users must state a position is not common practice.
 * Given those as the only approaches to the problem and they are mutually exclusive, since we must require consensus to implement the alteration and that makes action (1) unlawful or we accept the last proposal (2) as valid, but both lead to reestablishing the toc the it's original location, both do respect the only objection on the table that is not delete toc2, to what never objected as a concept, if Wikibookians working on the book in the future decide by the formal process or by exclusive consensus to alter the tocs so be it, I never opposed such outcome if done on those terms were all have a say.
 * If we ignore the issue again I can only envision two solutions on my part in the future (since there is no way to force a consensus with inexistent second party), to request the admin tools required to do the changes on the same grounds Darklama did it (even if I consider it distasteful, but it is being validated by the present inaction), and the tools are there to be requested on such needs by policy (and since there is no other active and constant contributor to the book to object to them) or I claim to be the only contributor to the work that can claim to have been actively and constantly contributing to it (since there isn't another contributor to the work in the same situation, or near it) and again request the changes, this solution is supported by common practice on Wikibooks. I personally don't like any of these options. --Panic (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A new year and new attacks on Panic? Or is it Panic up to his usual tricks and annoying administrators to the brink of long term blocks.  Panic has contributed to Wikibooks for a number of years and has benefited the Wikibooks community.  Considering his/her thousands of edits only a small percentage of these can be described as a nuisance.  I notice again that people are talking about 'long term blocks' and not unblocking until 'he has apologised / mended his ways / stopped trying to change things' or whatever.  This is all reminicent of the battles of 2008 (or was it 2007).  But as blocks seem to be attracted to Panic maybe he/she needs to address whatever s/he might be doing that is pissing people off so much.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 22:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Admins and complainants alike!

This lengthy fixated diatribe and its responses do little to engender confidence in the stability of the Wikibooks family. Might I suggest that all of the parties cease, with a view to getting on with business? An example of the business that I had in mind might include, but not necessarily be limited to, the removal of the foul user names from items elsewhere on this page. These reading rooms are used by individuals of all ages and I am surprised that they continue to be displayed. Perhaps such sensitive details could be handled at a different level, when the very obvious distraction and delay that this Panic issue poses can be put aside! I thank you, Armchair (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Armchair. I assure you that few of those who have engaged in this discussion have done so lightly or drawn much pleasure from it. Feel free to read through this saga of the past several years and you'll see that proposing people just stop engaging in this discussion (which has actually been quite calm as of late) isn't as simple, or productive, as you may think. Simply ignoring it is a tried and failed approach in this case. Do not think for one moment that we've approached this lightly; nor that we think this reflects well on our community. Far from it. In fact, I entered this whole mess because I feel it is a poor stain on this community and would gladly see it mended. As a piece in road to that end, I proposed a solution to break the recent impasse so that we could move on.
 * Which failed miserably.
 * But not without a serious commitment; spending hours upon hours reading up on past issues, proposing solutions to moving things on and discussing the aftermath of all this. I found your caution on this therefore offensive, though I'm sure it wasn't intended as such. I would possibly have proposed something similar myself, but now I know better. I have, not without any thought, reformatted it as a regular comment. Feel free to revert that, but please consider how condecending it may come across as.
 * As for foul usernames, though we do try to avoid offensive content Wikibooks is as you know not censored and we need a place to discuss things like these. They are archived automatically in a timely manner. --Swift (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

General relativity/BKL singularity
Hi, just tagged General relativity/BKL singularity for speedy deletion as it is a copy and paste (instead of transwiki) from WP... Pretty sure this isn't allowed, but just checking here in case I'm tagging incorrectly. Thanks Unusual? Quite TalkQu 12:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the page cannot be imported that's fine. There just needs to be a way for people wishing to reuse the material to know where it came from and who to needs to be acknowledged. In general the person should of made an Import Request first. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  16:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In this case there is no issue nor need to acknowledge Wikipedia, the pages here and in Wikipedia are from the same and single author Lantonov. --Panic (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not true, [ there are other people who have contributed to the work on Wikipedia], Lantonov just happens to be the most noticeable one. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  16:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you examined each contribution ? Simple phrases and citations aren't copyrightable (the article on Wikipedia started on a very small description of the subject not made by Lantonov), most other edits don't add much content they just make editorial alterations (bold text, Wiki links etc) and add citations. We could argue that they should be mentioned or referenced, and I don't see any harm on that but this isn't a strict requirement in this case (and on this scale), not one that would validate a speedy deletion or even a VfD discussion, if User:QuiteUnusual wants to take the time to correct the issue he can request a transwiki and fix it, or just talk to Lantonov so he is made aware of the possibilities. --Panic (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I already imported one revision and merged it in, since I could not import the whole history. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  19:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was just requesting advice on whether or not a copy / paste in this circumstance was the right approach given the general stricture against doing so. I've done plenty of transwiki cleanups here and will be happy to clean it up at some point if nobody else does. <font color="#E66C2C">Unusual? Quite <font color="#306754">TalkQu 22:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, you deserve some recognition from bringing this up since you were uncertain, and I've been watching all your cleanup and general work on Wikibooks, that I'm certain is greatly appreciated by all.
 * As for this page I think we can consider the issue closed and fully addressed by the last action of User:Darklama, I also have now welcomed Lantonov, and called his attention to transwikis and this discussion. I haven't checked all the pages on the book, if you do and see that there is a prominent use of Wikipedia content please add an attribution to Wikipedia to the book. --Panic (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for turning my attention to this discussion. Maybe I should have requested trans-wiki but I didn't know that such exists so I mostly copied and adapted manually the text from w:BKL singularity which was essentially made by myself (the contributions of other users are mainly in adding to the list of references). If there is a way to acknowledge other people's contribution, I am keen to have it done. I explained in more detail in w:Talk:BKL singularity the reasons for having two articles: one in Wikipedia and one in Wikibooks. The main reason is that the article in Wikipedia became too long and too technical. I decided to shorten and make more accessible the Wikipedia article while providing the more advanced readers with the option to look for math and proofs in the Wikibooks article which I intend to expand and give intermediate calculations. In any case, I do not claim any copyright, we are Wikipedians. --Lantonov (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock, Vandal: Action Required Resolved
User:Gaylord Twink, edit to WB:FAQ inserting same phrase as previous blocked vandal User:Aram Pitts. Possible sock puppet, definite vandal. <font color="#E66C2C">Unusual? Quite <font color="#306754">TalkQu 08:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism... <font color="#E66C2C">Unusual? Quite <font color="#306754">TalkQu 08:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Tired of rolling back now! There's also about 25 pages that'll need deleting... And can we find an admin who wants to work mornings UK time too ;-) ! <font color="#E66C2C">Unusual? Quite <font color="#306754">TalkQu 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All sorted now it seems - thanks. <font color="#E66C2C">Unusual? Quite <font color="#306754">TalkQu 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work Qu! --Swift (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks... Something to do on a quiet morning at the office. <font color="#E66C2C">Unusual? Quite <font color="#306754">TalkQu 16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Persistent IP Vandal
212.219.81.181. Has been vandalising on and off the last couple of days. When I tried to post a warning on the talk page, I got a "permission error" from the black list, so presumably this is a known vandal IP? Anyway, might be deserving of a block. Thanks <font color="#E66C2C">Unusual? Quite <font color="#306754">TalkQu 13:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this and have blocked him for a week. --Swift (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

IP talk pages blacklisted
I noticed that talk pages for IP addresses are blacklisted - any reason in particular? --Sigma 7 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us the exact message you get? &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 17:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, found it & removed it. Let us know if you have further problems. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 17:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For those interested, this seems to have been an issue with MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. --Swift (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)