Essay on Arbitration and it's applicability to Administrative actions - (stub) arbitrations, unblock, beyond wikiworld (real world liabilities), how to address events or accusations if you don't have prof or are not involved, great example [here] .
Essay on User Blocks (best practices)- (stub) how to avoid abuses, proxys other limitations on how to make people comply if not in good faith
Essay on Be Bold and restrictions- (stub) define the general restrictions (format, scope)
Essay on Administrators (users on a task) - (stub) no special insight, common users on a task
Essay on Authors and Contributor - (stub) Darklama/Whiteknigh view, history pages, anonymous contributions and IDs (to be extended on the another essay), real world liabilities (on copyright), Moving control toward a defined book community (see Primary Authors and argue against the Essay concept)
Essay on Forks - (stub) show my divergences even with [Jimbo on the forks] (related to the C++ fork).
Essay on the GFDL and copyright - (stub) Darklama/WitheKnight view, erroneous identification (or claims of abuse of copyright), history pages problems and abuses or simply as misinformation, GFDL and Documentation (not software), WMF and GFDL/FSF, Wikibooks:Copyrights, GFDL violation (only copyright holders), Copyright Law of the United States of America, Wikibooks:Ownership
Essay on using back channels to promote hegemony (see also User:Panic2k4/A house with no law(n))

{{
It's really not so much about cloaks and daggers, just that I'm not sure if people are watching as carefully as they should be. There are plenty of public hints that might help you figure out my concerns :), but I try not to speak publicly about things I dearly hope won't happen. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It was more a tag for my history log than a constructive comment on the events, as I stated I don't understand what is going on, nor am I particularly interested in it, since it is not evident (hence conclusive) and detrimental to this project at the moment. I don't like the aura of things but will trust you on this... --Panic (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In a related subject, shouldn't there be a limit on cumulative and concurrent interests, like a user having the Administrative rights over a given number of sister projects. I think work on a single project would keep anyone sufficiently busy, it is my opinion that having the tools and will to apply them is detrimental to be a productive contributor of content (not work) time is a finite resource every new undertaking must have an impact on it if the job is ever to be performed, if anything else it will impact on the resulting quality, and no good will or dedication can help it... --Panic (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It is something that can certainly be brought up, but you should know as well as any that if you want to make a change, you need to either start a convincing discussion, or draft a good proposal. I don't know that there is anything that we can do to prevent people from being given tools on other projects, nor to "punish" people for accepting them elsewhere, but I could be wrong. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you need admins of both sorts, really. Cross-wiki issues can be difficult if there are no admins with cross-wiki access, so having a few people with tools across projects is often of great benefit (checkuser and b'crat renaming tools in particular are very handy for these sorts of things). The cross-wiki folks of course aren't going to be as active in some areas on any single project as the single-project admins, but they can get things done very efficiently when there are indeed cross-wiki issues (which hopefully we will have more and more of as the small projects continue to grow). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 13:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking in a middle ground, we should at least state something about accumulation and resulting degradation of effectiveness on the RFA. I'm working something out, not prohibitive but that would require some consideration from the nominator and the nominee.

A requirement to inform the community of the acceptance of concurrent activities elsewhere would be opposed ? --Panic (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it feels a little like "bragging" or something, but maybe just have a standard userbox or something? I'm guessing perhaps 1/2 of our admins have tools on other projects... it's really not uncommon (in fact, I'm fairly sure that the vast majority of commons and wikiversity admins are interwiki admins). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 10:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

}}