Wikibooks talk:Arbitration/Panic2k4 vs. SBJohnny/Arbitrator Actions

I want to say that I disagree with the way this was done. As an outside observer with no dog in the fight, the process seems unfair to me. --xixtas 06:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I too was an outside observer that had nothing to do with the process, technically even less than yourself, someone who left multiple comments at the process' talk page discussing procedure and what I consider to have some investment in that process. I've left a comment at your talk page to discuss this in a limited fashion and I hope you will respond. I further hope that with some additional review of the many pages on the site discussing this matter, you will see the harm being done to the community with this arbitration and the need to end it before we lost many dedicated and productive users. -within focus 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the original Arbitrator is missing and to your (and probably other users) view that the arbitration is taking to long the only acceptable response is to void the arbitration completely and restore the previous block with my request to unblock pending decission.

I don't share your rational about my response to the accusations made, and you fail to validate or address the question on the table and further empower SBJohnny first decision that was in all regards abusive.

Since you consider that in stating my objections and comments addressing the same accusation as requested by the existing procedure I was offensive (I don't see how), you place yourself in a position that clearly opposes the right of any user to contest actions he feels as wrong, any other blocking action will further demonstrate the irresponsibility of the use of the blocking power here on Wikibooks, since no policy does support it's use in the way you intend on using it.

Such action, in it self will be detrimental to the sense of community you are pretending to defend. As a show of respect for the same community a poll that would reflect the community wishes would have been a better decision. --Panic 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You were given an unprecidented amount of freedom and time to refute the decision and seek redress. Rob created an entire arbitration process solely for your benefit, against even the general will of the community. This same arbitration hearing was allowed to continue for much longer then it should have. I would say, therefore, that you have been given plenty of opportunity here.
 * There might not be a current policy dictating when and how an admin may block a non-vandal user, but the absence of policy does not mean we are not capable of such blocks. Admins are allowed to use their own judgement in using admin tools, especially in situations where there is no policy. Finally, you have repeatedly violated the Be civil policy, and that policy does say that users who violate the policy may be blocked.
 * There will be no poll, and no discussion, and no review. This whole mess has gone on long enough. Months ago we adminstrators were asked to solve problems that you have caused, and to reprimand your bad behavior. The only error that we are guilty of is not producing a quick, decisive, unified response to the initial requests. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see that Rob created anything to my benefit, if he had I would not have participated, the arbitration was created to address the lack of wikibooks to support a user contesting any action he doesn't agree with, Rob was not acting on my benefit he was addressing the lack of solution to a uncommon problem that was created by what I saw as abusive behavior of an administrator.


 * As for the time the arbitration took or how it unfolded I had no control, I accepted the terms and I remind you that I was the only one that can be seen as having something to lose, that was the scope of the arbitration. I and SBJohnny were the ones involved the community role on the proceedings up to this time consisted more on voluntary comments on how an arbitration should be established, no harm was done to the community and it attempted to provide a demonstration on how to address future problems.


 * Admins are allowed to use their own judgment but decisions on those judgments may lack community support or even violate active policies (as I say they did), Admins are only users with special rights entrusted to them by the community, under no active policy or broad interpretation can the granting of such right imply that actions can't be contested or even fall under abuse or error or that the judgment of an Admin is superior to that of a common user.


 * I didn't in any way violate the Be civil as I think I proved and other SBJohnny missed to provide evidence of such violations, more, the use of Be civil as a gag order to users shouldn't be allowed and in itself violates the spirit of the policy. User should be able to disagree and discuss and even work toward changes and improvements to the community.


 * Months ago we adminstrators were asked to solve problems that you have caused, and to reprimand your bad behavior.


 * This statement is incorrect, I didn't cause any problems or engaged in bad behavior. The problems you are referring to were started by Darklama move of pages and deletion of content from a book, I asked the user and tried to come to an agreement with him and even tried to get some comment from administrators but this weren't the objects of the arbitration.


 * As for the community error I could agree more, if policy was fallowed on the contested edits, the moves would have been reverted and the content restored as for active policies, this would have diffused and averted the situation I face now. I strongly object to statement that further try to establish we are here due to any limitation or lack of will I have to try to solve the problems in an amicable way and state the situation as problems I caused, the only problems I may have caused is forcing the community to address some abusive actions that were performed on my account, this is a right I have and will pursue to the ultimate consequences as I see myself as the one that was wrongly target on a disciplinary action.


 * As for the review, I have already started action on meta as per the setting Rob established when creating the arbitration, since some events and actions are being performed that further violate active community policies and my rights and also subvert the intentions of the Arbitration and the subject and the terms I agreed on participating in it.


 * I'm not engaging in any action that will harm the community, my intention is only to be treated within the rules I agreed on in participating on the project, to avoid being made an escape goat to the community lack of will to address such problem and I think the results even if I find myself excluded from participating will be useful to the future of Wikibooks.


 * I can understand that part of the community see my actions on contesting the block as problematic or causing bad will, but it should be clear that I have nothing to gain and only to lose and that I'm only acting in the best interests of the community, I have nothing to hide and all my actions if checked are within the guidelines of the project, if someone did behave badly it wasn't me, I have already stated the actions I regret but in themselves were not violations of any active policy. --Panic 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I could have guessed you would have gone to meta with your appeal, and I am sure that when the folks at meta do not agree with you either, you will turn to yet a higher authority. This does not surprise me.
 * The biggest issue between us is a disagreement, or different interpretations of the policies that we have. This is how it has been since I first got involved in this issue, and I am not surprised that you are trying to make it an issue still. It is my opinion, along with User:Withinfocus, User:SBJohnny, User:Darklama, and other users that I will choose not to name here, that you did violate the Be civil policy, on a number of occasions. There is anecdotal evidence that your pattern of behavior has been happening for as long as you have been a member here. I can understand, considering that english is not your first language, that perhaps there is a translation error with the word "civil", and I would be inclined to grant you leniency on that account, if that were the case. In all your time here, how many people have stopped editing the C++ book (or all the different C++ books) because of your behavior? How many people have left wikibooks all together because of your behavior? I can name at least 1 person who did leave, 1 who was about to leave, and 1 who is currently preparing to leave because of unhappiness at your actions. I am certain there are others as well that we have not identified.
 * Beyond the Be civil policy, there are no mentions in policy of admins blocking users for bad behavior, and I will admit that the Be Civil policy is a recent policy that was not in effect during some of your actions. However, admins are allowed to use judgement in such cases, and it was the decision of multiple admins that you should have been blocked. Before blocking you, SBJohnny discussed the issue with myself and multiple other wikibookians first, and we waited a long time before acting. Such forethought and planning is not common among the corrupt or abusers of power. No person likes to be disciplined, but that does not mean that you were abused, mistreated, or discriminated against.
 * This whole situation, from your actions in the C++ book, through the arbitration have caused this community substantial harm. You claim to want to improve the community, and I don't doubt your motives, but unfortunately the reality is very different from what you claim.
 * I will continue to monitor your user talk page so that this discussion can continue after you have been blocked. When and if you choose to return to wikibooks, I hope that we can put all this behind us. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

I only requested meta intervention because of the last days posts, it was not my intention of bringing outsiders to intervene on a solution that should have been achieved here, it is with sorrow that I did fallow that path, I'm sorry Rob couldn't complete his task...

Can you please point me out were and when I did violate the Be civil, that would be useful and I can then agree or have a more productive discussion on my and your interpretation of the policy and if it should apply to the problem.

Of course I will push the subject as I'm the one on the line here, not submitting to a wrong deed gives more value to 1)my intention to still participate on the project 2)be willing to admit any errors and correct them 3)refute any wrong doing so far, if I stopped pushing the issue it would be admitting that any of my actions were wrong or that I did not have any intention of being constructive, I don't like to but I'm obliged to continue.

There is anecdotal evidence that your pattern of behavior has been happening for as long as you have been a member here.

I don't fallow you here, can you point to such evidence ?

To be civil is to respect others as you wish to be respected, to be civil is to respond to other with the same courtesy that others address you. To be civil is to be polite, that it not to be rude. That is the bases of the policy. That is what I fallow and always did even if no policy makes it an obligation, here and everywhere.

In all your time here, how many people have stopped editing the C++ book

I can't respond to that nor can you respond to the reverse, how many people did I bring to wikibooks and to that project?, but please point me the one you say left Wikibooks because of my actions, even Paddu didn't live at the time because of me as I have pointed out and that was the only other user I had any other "problem" with. I don't know any other user that was contributing to the book that was intending on quiting because of me, if you are referring to James, please talk to the user, I took no action and did not have any "problem" with him and if the user took offense, I did at the proper time ask him apologies for any confusion the "off topic" intervention of Darklama and my reply at the time caused to him.

I feel abused in the way the blocks were performed, the time frame and actions that the blocks permitted to occur or validated, all were not done by policy and in the proper form the community validates such performance and use of that power, in that way they were indeed abusive, a simple point is that a block should not be used to replace or stop a discussion even if that was not the case as no discussion was in motion with SBJohnny at the time, this simple point demonstrates in it self a lack of respect for the Be civil or the guidelines to expect and work on the hope of the other party to have good intentions.

I give the same level of regard to the users having or not the administrative flag, to me they are users like the any other, they should, even more then others, respect and use restrain on the application of their decisions just because more is expected from them, they are expected to have a higher regard for the community that entrusted them with the power to perform actions that can cause great harm to others.

If you can provide me of any wrong doing or clear break of policy I will concede that some level of disciplinary action should be performed, but not the ones SBJohnny invoked on his blocks. --Panic 04:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Paddu has said on more then one occasion that he stopped editing the C++ book because of your behavior. He also cited you as a reason why he would not return to this project in the future. User:James Dennett and User:Darklama were both treated badly by you on a number of occasions, and the administrative staff (myself included) received a number of complaints about you in these instances. Numerous posts and events have already been pointed out to you in the original mediation (between you and User:Darklama), in the subsequent warnings from myself and from User:SBJohnny, and in the dispositions in the final arbitration.
 * Whether you believe it or understand it is not an issue here: You can and will be disciplined even if you don't understand the problem. We've made every effort to help you see the error, and we've made effort to try and fix problems. Unfortunately, all these efforts have not had the desired result, and the community opinion is that you are not civil and not nice.
 * I will point out some of the issues that have gotten you here. All of these behaviors are considered "uncivil":
 * Imposing deadlines on other contributors to make changes.
 * Removing posts from talk pages made by other users.
 * Threatening to revert posts by other users.
 * Reverting posts by other users made in good faith, especially mass reverts (such as "I will revert all your recent changes").
 * Preventing contributors from being listed as an "author" to a book or page.
 * Being unfriendly and impatient with new users ("Don't bite the newbies").
 * Wikibooks is a collaborative effort, and you have demonstrated on multiple occasions that you are not willing to collaborate with other editors. That problem alone is enough to warrant your discontinued membership here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: I have also sent a message to meta:User:Redux explaining the situation, and asking him not to continue this fight any further. The continued escalation of this discussion, and other disciplinary discussions in the past, when good-faith efforts have been made to solve disputes, should not be encouraged or tolerated. Discipline of misbehaving users can not open to infinite appeal. Such infinite appeals and continuations appears to me as an abuse of the system. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again I'm sorry but you are incorrect, user User:Paddu was not contributing to the book from the first day I started, he was active on the book's talk page and as can be checked on the pages logs and users contributions, the only contributions he made to the work were on the first days some spell corrections and later on only reverts and content moves (and mostly on the talk pages) this is part of the logs, I didn't saw anywhere the user Paddu state he left because of me, he did stop his presence on Wikibook altogether but some time after the "fork", that solution was created by me to enable all to be productive, at least I and others have...


 * It seems you haven't read my "counter argumentation", User:James Dennett was a third party that Darklama got involved by engaging me on a books talk page, the user is inexperienced and was unaware of the "bigger picture", in no way my exchange of words with this user violates Be Civil or active policies.


 * As for User:Darklama I agree that in some of the last posts I could have be more polite but I'm human also, and my efforts not to get aggravated did fail a moment or other, I had been "dialogging" with the user for several moths, he DID violate standard policies and guidelines.


 * You are "forcing" some interpretations that aren't correct and are already addressed on my response to the accusation, there was no IMPOSITION OF TIME LIMITS, user James edits in question are a few scattered words, the user in question did not object to later correction I made to the page. All points 1-6 are without merit some I have addressed on the arbitration some are new but I will respond to them in a similar way.
 * (Reduction to the absurd) You User:Whiteknight have been (the value is the same).
 * Imposing deadlines on other contributors to make changes.
 * Removing posts from talk pages made by other users.
 * Threatening to revert posts by other users.
 * Reverting posts by other users made in good faith, especially mass reverts (such as "I will revert all your recent changes").
 * Preventing contributors from being listed as an "author" to a book or page.
 * Being unfriendly and impatient with new users ("Don't bite the newbies").


 * Those accusations against me are without bases. I don't understand YOU doing this but it further pushes misinformation, you had the chance to intervene on the arbitration proceeding and you did, I will not repeat myself ad infinitum all the points were addressed in my response you had the chance to validate and contest those points.


 * But again those are not the topics of the arbitration, the point is, was the last block rightful and properly executed ? It clearly was not. --Panic 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And I will not repeat myself ad infinitem either. You may not think that your actions were uncivil, but they were, and they did draw criticisms. Users did complain about you, and the admins did find evidence of your abuse during the mediation, and later during the arbitration. Large numbers of conversations were not held here on wikibooks, but were instead conducted over email, IRC, and were located on other wikis. I am sorry if you cannot find the logs, but that does not mean these conversations did not happen.
 * Your imposition of deadlines on other users, and your threatening to revert edits of other users were displayed in the arbitration. SBJohnny and other users linked to edits of yours where you exhibit these behaviors. I will not repost those links here. User:Darklama and User:James Dennett both testified in the arbitration that you were uncivil to them both when they were new users. Explanations or apologies that happened later don't really change the fact that you had been uncivil in the past. Explanations of your behavior should have happened long before the mediation and the arbitration. After the arbitration started, it was really too late to fix the mistakes. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

Again I don't agree with you, the proper forum to state any complain is Wikibooks, this is were I can have a chance of defending myself from any accusation. I saw no complain on my talk page or in the staff l. the recognized method of placing such complains.

Again I state that 1)I have no power to 2)never did, impose any deadline as is part of the arbitration record, as for User:James Dennett I did explain and apologized to him before the arbitration as soon as I realized the user had misunderstood what I said to him (it's on the arbitration logs also), but as I stated it, it was a request not an obligation to comply, the user did try to perform the requested action later but I had already corrected the subject of the request, no conflict with the user was or is intended on my part, I was never uncivil with the user and even if a reversion on the spot could have avoided the users misunderstanding and be in accord with the normal way such corrections are made I tried to understand the intention of the change in question. As a programmer if you can check the edits and you will understand what the problem was and the minor importance of the subject in question, the problem is a clear fabrication and can be checked as I gave every information on the arbitration log. --Panic 19:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Xania's Comments
I see that the arbitration has now ended but a decision has been made by Withinfocus and not the original arbitrator (who is unavailable). I can not support this decision. This seems to be a whitewash and the punishment is way out of proportion. Panic has gone out of his way to make ammends, supported the arbitration and refrained from annoying people since this began. IK would have supported a decision by the original arbitrator (but not such a severe punishment) but if we're not doing that then we may just as well have a show of hands and vote the old fashioned way. Xania talk 22:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)