User talk:Robert Horning

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

I've been getting so many messages here that I need to start an archive.

For older messages please see Archive1

Contents

[edit] About Introdução á programação

Thanks very much, Robert!!! I'm lightningspirit from the portuguese project of Wikibooks, and i saw that you posted Introdução à Programação book for Wikimania Awards... Awesome :D The book is a Finalist! Thank you very much! Pela nossa grande aliança entre Ingleses e portugueses. Muito obrigado! :)

Da nada. Eu gusto Wikilivros e acha que esta livro e o melhor livro do entro mundo de Wikibooks projectos. Sendo uma finalista de Wikimania certamente e uma marca de distinção. --Rob Horning 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

Thanks for the vote on WB:RFA. I have to say that I don't particularly want the checkuser rights, but I think that we do need them, and that I could get the votes together to make it happen. I agree with you on all counts: Bureaucrats probably should get checkuser rights immediately and the bureaucrat creation process should be more strict. I would like to incorporate text like that into the new administrator policy that I am drafting, but I don't know how best to do it. Certainly, we can't make our policy say that "every bcrat automatically gets checkuser", because the stewards have their own policy on the matter, and they are unlikely to follow ours. However, i think that an RFA vote for a bcrat should be done in conjuction for an RFA for checkuser rights. For instance, all the votes to create a bcrat, if successfull, would be automatically rolled over to support that bcrat getting checkuser rights as well. If a bcrat is elected with 10 votes, that means only 15 additional votes would be required to get checkuser rights.

On my policy proposal, I state that a bcrat candidate must currently be an admin, but we could make the requirements more strict then that: there are plenty of admins here (mostly inactive) who simply don't deserve to have any additional tools at their disposal. I realize that I am more strict when it comes to admins then you are. Perhaps we could include text that a bcrat candidate must be an admin in good standing, who is "reasonably" active, has no recent history of abuse, and uses the admin tools to benefit the community.

On a personal note, I've considered for some time now nominating you for the position of bcrat, I'm sure you could get the votes without any problem. If you feel like you are too busy with your other projects, I can understand that. If you are not too busy elsewhere, I would like to see you get nominated for it. Let me know. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, before I even had a chance to nominate you for bcrat, User:AlbertCahalan has nominated you for checkuser rights. I'm in favor of it, if you will accept your nomination. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mentor

Hi, I'm looking for a mentor -- see here. I saw your name on the list of mentors, and I see your not at your limit of 2 Probationaries like sebmol, so I was wondering if you would take me on :) Let me know on my talk page, or here --Deon555 08:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (currently 61.68.178.39)

[edit] Wikistandards

Robert. I notied that you played a central role in the voting for wikistandards. I have a thread going on foundation-L where I proposed such a project. And I was directed to meta where I eventually found the now-defunct effort. Can you tell me in your opinion why it died, and whether I can work to revive it? The thread on foundation-L is titled "proposed new project - wikistandards." My name shows up there as "No Spam." The first standard I want to get going is a Project Management standard (similar to the for-profit effort at PMI.org). Cacace 00:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back!

Welcome back from your wikibreak, Rob! I've held off proposing some new projects so you had the opportunity to comment on (and hopefully help out with, if you have the time!) the projects. Hope to see you around a lot more, hagindaz 23:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ht wikisource

you proposed yourself as an admin for ht.wikisource.org. currently this site is not maintained at all, and we are wondering whether it should be closed or not.

could you please become a sysop there (ask a steward, eg Yann), and import all the pages in Haitian from wikisource.org ?

thanks,

ThomasV on ws.org

[edit] Hi Robert!

Good to "see your face"... how's the press idea coming along?

BTW, Import is actually enabled now... there's a request in at bugzilla for the transwiki namespace, hopefully they'll get to it soon (currently you have to import, then move to transwiki, then delete the original file... total drudgery, but a lot better then the copy-paste of yore). Keep an eye on WB:RFI for incoming requests. --SB_Johnny | talk 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just read the start of your blog... I'll definitely be following :).
I was going to leave a comment there, but I have way too many accounts and passwords to keep track of these days. OTOH I've been thinking of blogging myself lately... was it easy enough to set up? --SB_Johnny | talk 20:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Starting the blog wasn't all that difficult. The hosting company is one of the "Google" related companies and applying for a new blog was about as difficult as registering an account with Wikimedia projects... well, almost. But I have put a little more thought into the structure of the blog and while at first it was going to be just general musings of mine, I think something more dedicated to the free textbook "industry" might be a little better. And certainly here on Wikibooks we are right in the thick of that philosophy and concept. --Rob Horning 19:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Untagged Images

Hey Rob, I just wanted to let you know that there are currently 4 untagged images to your name, and we are going to move forward with mass deletion of untagged images within a month or so.

Since it is you, I have no doubt that these images are under an acceptable license. If you let me know what license that is, I will gladly tag them all for you.

--Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Robert - I still need your help!

I need to move Algebra 1 in Simple English to Simple English Wikibooks. You said that you would move it several months ago, but I guess you forgot. I'm getting lots of contributions, but unfortunately they're from people who do not understand the meaning of Simple English. I need the book to be on the Simple English Wiki so that people will be more likely to write in Simple English. I'm making a big presentation at a Math conference on Dec. 1st, and I really need this situation cleared up before then. Please point me to someone else if you don't have time or can't help me with this.--HSTutorials 05:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I just asked the staff lounge if there was someone there who could help me out.

[edit] Acetone peroxide synthesis

I have proposed the acetone peroxide synthesis for deletion. What do you think? Ewen 14:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mentorship on Wikiversity

Would you mind being my mentor as a custodian? I wish to become a custodian to further my contributions on Wikiversity and to improve this project. To tell you a little about what I have done so far, I have set up the Spanish Language Division and am the instructor of the Spanish I and Spanish II courses. I have also done some work on templates such as talk header, Spanish language, to do list, and others. -- J.Steinbock

[edit] Medicine4Kids

I'm interested in your opinion on the VfD for Medicine4Kids. Both specifically as it regards that title and more generally how the quoted policy appies to WikiJunior. --xixtas 23:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tut tut

Very naughty - moving a VfD to speedy like that - well I got my wrist slapped earlier so... Of course I agree with you <g> Regards --Herby talk thyme 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks Newsletter, Volume 1

(Wikibooks gazette home | Discuss | Bulletin board | Subscription list)

This is a short newsletter that is being distributed to all active wikibookians. You are getting this message because you are recognized as an established contributor to the project. This newsletter will be distributed on a regular basis to help share news, information, and tips. It comes from a bot account, User:The Staff. User:The Staff is currently operated by a team of wikibooks admins, the complete list of which is available on the user page of the bot. If you would like to not receive this newletter anymore, please remove your name from the list at Wikibooks:Active wikibookians.

The work you do at Wikibooks is greatly appreciated. However there are plenty of other opportunities for you to get involved and help us to create a thriving Wikibooks community. We are sure that there are things we can do to help you and your understanding of Wikibooks and similarly there are certainly things you could do to help Wikibooks become a better place.

We would like to ask all wikibookians to add the Bulletin Board to your watchlists. The Bulletin Board is a fast and easy way for wikibookians to communicate important news and events to the entire community. If you have important news to share with the community, you can feel free to add your own entry to that page.

If you have general questions or comments about Wikibooks, you are welcome to post a message on The Staff Lounge, a free discussion area. Your input would also be welcomed in the Votes for Deletion and Requests for Adminship discussion pages. These pages are all active discussion areas that help to shape the Wikibooks community as a whole.

Sometimes it is easy to forget that the Wikibooks community is much larger and more diverse then the people who work in a single book, or on a single bookshelf. Hopefully, together we can all make Wikibooks a better place, and a more valuable educational resource.

The Staff
04:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Blindingly obvious when put like that and thanks. In practice last time the talk page was also used as an apparent "dump" of fiction which made me enquire in the lounge. In practice I feel less deletionist as time goes on so views on "if they put it on the talk page" again at all? Thanks and regards --Herby talk thyme 14:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub deletion

Have you seen that What is Wikibooks unstable page and the accompanying talk page lately? I thought it was interesting you commented "at least as long as we don't have a stub deletion policy" as justification to keep Toki Pona. Specifically the following.

"It may be that, even though a textbook meets the criteria specified in this policy, it is unsuitable for Wikibooks for other reasons. For example, it may be in such a state of disrepair and no one wants to revise into something workable."

While it doesn't directly come out and say it, I could imagine that being used to justify deleting stubs. --Iamunknown 15:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

But that is a proposed policy and IMHO has not been thought through either, nor has the full definition of a stub been brought forth. I do believe that there are some stubs that can be deleted that are a paragraph long or even just a few words. But it is an area that we do need to be careful over and not treat lightly. And what we currently think of as a very old Wikibook (no activity for two years or so) may not seem so old here in a few years. There are only two really good reasons to remove very old stubs:
  1. Server disc space - And this isn't really an argument as Wikibooks take up so little space that it hardly matters, especially compared to Wikipedia. And besides, the deleted pages still take up server space even after they are no longer "visible" to ordinary users.
  1. Dealing with indexing of Wikibooks - Acting under the assumption that having more pages to "watch" is going to become an administrative burden for those charged with maintaining Wikibooks as a project. There is some merit to this idea, but I don't think it is as big of a deal as everybody seems to make it out as.
I would like to see a better justification to deleting stubs than this before they are deleted in large numbers. I also don't believe that Toki Pona fits the minimal definition as an insignificant stub. --Rob Horning 15:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand that it is a proposed policy. And I only partially agree with it. And I do not think that Toki Pona should be deleted. I was pointing the page out to you because I think that it will be adopted regardless of how well-thought out it is. For one thing, on the talk page Whiteknight has already put up a vote. For another, on IRC, the admins (that are on there) talk about it almost as if it is already adopted. --Iamunknown 15:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publishing, etc

Hey Rob, it's been a while since you were around alot, so welcome back! I wanted to ask you specifically, what needs to get done for a wikibook to get published? What if we publish through an external publishing house, and dont involve the WMF in the process directly? Many of the policy pages that we are working on now will have some effect on our ability to publish our books, and if we all know the ramifications better, and if we know the current status of the project better, perhaps we can make our decisions better. Would you mind writing up some kind of notice, or even an essay about the status of this? What do we need? What is the stance of the WMF? Who do we need to talk to? I think you are currently the most knowledgible on this topic, so anything you have to say about it will be appreciated. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

We (meaning myself and Gabriel.... er User:Munchkinguy), have been successful in obtaining some ISBNs for several Wikibooks, and have set up the PDF files with Lulu Press to do the actual publication. I'm not entirely happy with this arrangement, but it is a way for us to get started and get something going. Keep in mind that we are doing this on the ultimate shoestring budget, and unfortunatly the prices of the books we are publishing reflect that as well as they are a little high by my taste, with nearly all of money going to publications costs due to low volume.
My ultimate goal, and what I would really like to accomplish here in terms of a long-term goal is to set up a publishing cooperative that Wikibooks contributors would be able to join and "publish" their books through this "company". The purpose of it really is mainly to get the books actually in the hands of kids and "readers" in general. The problem is trying to find a "white knight" (no pun intended here to you) that would be able to help us out here and help us with the business side of things. I've talked to Jimbo briefly about this, as I think it may be something he might want to get involved with independently of the WMF (like he did with Wikia), but at the same time we may not want a target that big at the moment either.
This "cooperative business" (see w:Cooperative for similar businesses) would not be "owned" by the Wikimedia Foundation, but instead would be jointly owned by Wikibooks users/contributors. This is important in part because the WMF doesn't want to get into the game for legal reasons, and because I also want to set this up in such a way that those who do the work will get rewarded for their efforts, including contributions to Wikibooks. Part of that reward certainly is altruistic for the most part, as in giving to the rest of "mankind" in terms of content. But at the same time, there is nothing explict that is stopping any of us from making a little profit here as well off of our efforts.
Note that the WMF's "official stance" is that they want nothing to do with being a formal "publisher" of Wikimedia content. That is something that the Wikimedia user community has to try and come up with on their own without any assistance from the WMF.
As far as using another "external publisher" is concerned, I'm not completely against that either, but I want to make sure that if it is done that those who put the content together will be properly acknowledged and potentially be able to "give back" to the WMF some financial support for even hosting Wikibooks in the first place. A private for-profit company may not do this as well as everybody would like.
I know that there are many Wikibooks users who wouldn't mind trying to get the publication of these books going, for other personal reasons. I have a little bit of a vanity streak in me as well to doing this, but it has to be a practical business situation as well. --Rob Horning 13:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

Morning or similar and best wishes for 2007. I think I made it 24 not 25 tho (never mind the discussion on consensus now rumbling!). I do appreciate the thoughts and the comments. While I do tend to shoot from the hip and be a bit of a deletionist I am getting better I assure you - hopefully I am still well aware that there are times to ask others for advice, when I know it all it will be past time to leave! Regards --Herby talk thyme 09:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks content

Don't talk to strangers if you don't want them to talk to you!! I will pursue this in an appropriate spot when I've thought it thro some more. I should say I am not a fan of rigid policies and rules (make of that what you want).

I have posted before in the Staff lounge (& been largely ignored) about the quality of the content of Wikibooks and your posting on original research made me think again. To me we have many "books" that follow the rules in terms of subject matter etc that are frankly dire. In the past week there was a "complaint" about lack of content on one of the IB books talk pages & I had to point out that if no one was able to contribute the book would remain dormant sadly - not what I would like to be saying. Any time I look at Wikijunior I realise just how good the offerings here can be. To me original research or anything else that is of a high quality seems to offer the reader of Wikibooks something we could be proud of?

Of course the flip side is that I would like to delete (de-list?) books that did not meet a standard - there that should be fun.

I know it would fly in the face of policy etc etc but am I way out of line here? Thanks and regards --Herby talk thyme 13:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely support those who want to help improve the overall quality of Wikibooks, and that I why I support things like the Book of the Month and "cleanup" campaigns in general.
My main concern over hard core "original research" here on Wikibooks has more to do with procedures the "cull out the cruft" rather than any real issue over having a place to put some of the better original research. Frankly, admin Wikibookians for the most part simply aren't equiped with the tools necessary to judge original research, and as such it is much easier to simply remove it altogether rather than trying to judge each case by its merits.
All this said, a scholarly book that happens to incorporate a few good new ideas should not be rationale to delete the entire Wikibook, nor should even those few extra pages that help give further insight into a topic that might be called "original research" necessarily be reason for deletion. In other words, there is no real hard and fast rule about this concept. But the problem here is that when pages become sufficient to become "citable" in other context, perhaps this "original research" needs to be examined.
One of the current outstanding problems with Wikibooks, BTW, has to do with mainly indexing, searching, and bringing up what exactly Wikibooks has to offer. There are a variety of ways to get this accomplished, which is one of the reasons why I tried to get the Card Catalog Office going. It really needs to be restarted in some ways, or at least significantly expanded. Your comment about why a certain IB book doesn't have content should also be somewhat termed "why can't I find what I want on Wikibooks?" At least with Wikipedia you can reasonably find an article about the topic comparatively quickly, with only a minor search or two to get to the page. Wikibooks seems to be much harder to get the same sort of task accomplished, mainly because of the larger structures that are a part of Wikibooks. That many redirects get deleted that might gently assist with that task is also a minor issue, even though I will admit that redirects are not the answer here on Wikibooks as they sometimes provide on Wikipedia. --Rob Horning 16:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Rob - much sense there but I do think we need to look for quality. Johnny has just started a "request for comments" page (WB:RFC) which might be useful. I confess a real peeve of mine is the extremely poor categorisation here - I was amazed that virtually everything in Cookbook was under "C" when I arrived (tho it helped my edit count no end). I am now running AWB as a licensed bot so adding or amending categories which should help with searching would be easy. If you have any views on how I can help with anything like that I'd be happy to know - regards --Herby talk thyme 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The WB:CCO - is it worth putting it in the next Gazette (should go out in Jan sometime)? The worst that can happen is no one bothers. --Herby talk thyme 13:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrators

Hi Robert. The problem with not having a "system" in place is because in the past it hasn't worked so well. I arbitrated a situation recently, using the informal system you seem to prefer, and it's been a miserable experience. Not only that, but while I was watching that one, another user was asking for arbitration, but I didn't want to take on 2 at once, and no-one else stepped up. Having a "formal structure" says: "this is serious, and needs to be addrressed now." It might also be useful in cases where one arbitrator needs to step out and hand the magic wand to someone else. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is something that has been debated endlessly for more than a year here on Wikibooks. The problems involved are both need, and find somebody who is willing to take on the job. Both have been rather lacking here on Wikibooks in the past, although there certainly seem to be some very active users that may be able to take on the job. BTW, can you point to a specific situation here on Wikibooks that your arbitration skills were invoked? --Rob Horning 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
That would probably be between Panic and me, I would imagine. Could you provide some more insight on Wikibooks_talk:Ownership? Not sure if it will do any good as far as clearing up any difference between Panic and me, but might help in providing what more may need to be added to WB:OWN. You seem to have some insight into this issue that Whiteknight and others turn to for clarification. --darklama 20:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Culling on a talk page?

I replied to your comment on my talk page, but due to the nature of the crime, I wanted to bring it to your immediate attention (in hope of swift redemption — I honestly can't see any content missing). --Swift 08:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just so you know...

User:Panic2k4 is blocked again. He can still edit on his user talk page if you'd like to chat with him. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current events

I'm sure you will have noticed - given I have noticed your recent creation - Wikibooks:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review_needed - my 0.02. Regards --Herby talk thyme 18:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I am not certain who the dispute is between tho --Herby talk thyme 18:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Rob, I'm not an admin, but I would be willing to participate in the arbitration process you've set up. I support the structure you have created, and feel that is the best way to achieve a fair result. I am interested in participating because if (as it seems) we are setting a precedent for the future I would like to help make sure that the process is done right.

I do not have any preconceptions about the situation, do not know any of the parties involved, and feel I can be entirely neutral in this situation. These qualities may be a rare combination around here. --xixtas 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Rob. I saw the arbitration thing, and while I support the process, I worry about a few points:
  1. Arbitration typically requires arbitrators. Who is going to fill this roll in the current case, and how will arbitrators (or is it "arbiters"?) be chosen in the future?
  2. It would seem to me that applying arbitration would require some sort of policy in place that will make the result of the arbitration binding. No sense setting up a whole judicial system if it has no authority.
  3. Typically, I would say that Panic2k4 is reasonably unpopular, while SBJohnny is reasonably popular. asking wikibooks locals to make a decision on this matter (considering the small size of the community), would likely be an unnecessary bias immediately. Conversely, asking outsiders to come take care of our affairs opens a much worse can of worms that I dont think any of us want.
I like the idea of an arbitration process, but I would hate to see us all rush into it without thinking it through. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that I am acting as an abritrator at the moment, but "self-appointed", mainly because this has been agreed upon by both Panic and the other parties involved. It is more mediation, but I'm forcing to arbitration by virtue of being an administrator, and acknowledging that I can reblock using my tools as an administrator, with a decision like this through this process making it "stick". I don't think once this process is completed and most of the current admins can agree to the ultimate decisions made (not to mention vetting of the issues involved) that there will be anybody arguing against the ultimate outcome.
We really do need to come up with an arbitrator committee, and that is certainly something that needs to be determined in the future. I have a few additional thoughts about the topic, but I'll add to that once I've gone through this meat grinder process.
It should be noted that I'm hoping (against hope) that everybody will come to an eventual concensus and not even really force me into a "decision" process. This is more a fact-finding process that I hope will reveal plainly who has screwed up here the worst, and I'm not trying to rush to a judgement first. If Panic is making as many problems as is alleged, it should be pretty obvious. I'm also hoping that he realizes that several people are very upset with his actions, regardless of if he is "in the right" or not. Johnny and Darklama are both creating waves as well, which is another reason I'm forcing their hand to participate here.
I'm formatting this as a legal proceeding, as such is really just a formalized debate anyway. The terms and names could certainly be modifed, but the whole point here is to get the information out in a structured manner. I've framed how the issues are going to be aired, but it is up to the participants who are complaining to bring the actual issues up. Again, I'm hoping just to be a referee here and not really make the ultimate decision unless it is being forced. --Rob Horning 00:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
What I would hate to see is for you to come to a conclusion which not only puts you at odds with the rest of the community (you may be neutral, but much of the community is biased against the defendant). In such a situation, especially without some sort of policy background, I can't imagine that the community will allow you to make a decision "stick". We also run the risk of establishing feuds between the admins here (which generally represent a tight community) which is much much worse, in my opinion, then not dealing with the issue at all.
As to arbitration, as I think about it, I disagree with it more and more. Wikibooks does well by avoiding the bureaucratic nonsense that has plagued wikipedia. In general, the community here favors the "less is more" approach to administration (policy, judiciary, etc), and setting up another level of administrative overhead is more then en.wikibooks needs or (i think) wants. Be careful in this Rob, you're a good wikibookian, but even the best intentions sometimes lead to the worst ends. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Herr hope that your removal of the block will not get you in any trouble, that done and since the unblock is made, the problem in particular was partially addressed.

I would ask that for a clear process you place a restating of the warning User:SBJohnny intended or as he said (and now clearly have done so) you are blocked because you started moving talk pages around (actually it was more like "re-moving" them), as you were warned not to do., so something like You shouldn't further reformat(change or alter the format) of work C++ Programming that originated the initial dispute involving User:Panic2k4 and User:Darklama both in my talk page and User:Darklama, ask User:SBJohnny to step down and let you take any administrative actions necessary on that subject in the future, so we don't get into any unnecessary (my interpretation) blocks/disputes in the future.

I would also like to have all blocks made by User:SBJohnny to me analyzed and failing to provide validity to them removed from my block log and some consideration given to what to do to User:SBJohnny in sequence to the findings.

As for the format dispute with User:Darklama, they can be addressed partially (since they go above and beyond the actual policies), I will once again state the points here to you and you will see what can be done.

Will this be possible and acceptable to all parties ? --Panic 02:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I do want to let you know that your concerns will be aired. As I tried to point out, this was a fight and edit war between two different users (yourself and Darklama), to which unfortunately SBJohnny became a party instead of a moderator. There is nothing directly wrong with that, but this is precisely why I have requested that this go to a formal arbitration, particularly given an admin involved here.
I have recieved a general agreement that a cooling off from the C++ Programming Wikibook will happen for the time being, particularly from the two users you have mentioned above, although there is nothing directly here that will stop other editor/contributors from editing the Wikibook. I have suggested that if this whole thing gets completely out of hand that I will simply freeze the C++ book through page protection, but I don't want to take that very drastic step at the moment.
I'll let you know when the "plaintiff" has decided to end their list of charges and you can start to formally display your defense here. BTW, in this whole thing, make sure you are also listing what you saw may have been abuses by Darklama and SB Johnny, including being blocked and why you think it may not have been appropriate. --Rob Horning 16:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Since you are considering the "plaintiff" as User:SBJohnny I must point out that this can probably lead to error, as plaintiff is by definition a person who brings an action in a court of law, in this case the definition would more directly apply to me, as I'm the plaintiff appealing on action by an administrator. No big problem I think I get your point but we should be careful not to mess this up. If legal term are to be used, User:SBJohnny is the "defendant". You should probably take this in consideration and be sure no confusion is generated.
It all depend on how things are stated (there is still a missing statement that defines the procedure), Is the arbitration about the request of unblock or a justification for the block, that is am I to accuse the other user or wrong doing and invalidate the block or is he to prove my wrong doing by that justify the block ? --Panic 19:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
As it is your intention to have User:SBJohnny write his POV first (I have no problem with it), he must provide information on the actions that created the block dispute, the why, the who, and the how (or other points that can be cross examined/contested by me) and you should give him a time frame to do so, some time constraints should exist in every step of the process.
I have noticed in Wikibooks talk:Arbitration/Panic2k4 vs. SBJohnny/Plaintiff Charges
a post from User:Iamunknown, and I agree that any other person with other disputes against me should be encouraged to vent them out and see them registered. But they should be signed posts and with the indication of the person involved and the topic of the dispute they also propose for analysis (if not directly related with the actual motion) and with enumerated points so I will be able to address them point by point and reduce confusion. --Panic 19:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I do want to point out that I have repeatedly asked several of those involved, including Johnny himself, to rename these pages if he doesn't want to be named in the dispute, or to be considered the "plaintiff". In this case, he is more like a beat cop who perhaps stepped over the line (as you are asserting here) that regardless of what happened certainly performed an action that ultimately precipitated this current course of action. He was also the one who tried to get me involved, even if this isn't exactly the way he wanted it to go down. His assertions (as well as Darklama, who perhaps is better named as the "plaintiff") were also given to me on the Wikibooks IRC channel, so I tried to make them official. It is not too late to name the "parties" in this arbitration case, but I also consider that to be a trivial detail.
As far as signing the posts, I think that is being covered fairly well. Instead of "signing" the posts, they are being seperated by section heading for each individual who is offering an opinion. You are, of course, free to use whatever formatting you would like in your reply, including using the more traditional wiki sig. --Rob Horning 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I also do formally request that the unblock request (and only that) be moved from my page to an addendum to the arbitration process (for historical reasons) and protected from edits, as it is it's causing problems on my talk page, txs. --Panic 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a very reasonable request. I'll go ahead and do that right now. --Rob Horning 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
After User:SBJohnny last post to me here, it seems the he is unsure what you intentions are and how the Arbitration will proceed, after thinking about it, I must ask if he did agree to it or not ? If he didn't then this will invalidate the Arbitration, did he retract in any way the block or any blocking action ?
Based on his last post I can see that he had no problem with the lifting of the block and he thought your function would be different, if he is willing to remove all my blocking logs and admit that he probably did them in haste or not in a clear way (even if off the record) and wants the proceeding ended, I will agree if you indeed take care of the other disputes and User:SBJohnny refrains to take any other action on those subjects, I have no personal grudge with him and I'm not here to humiliate or degrade his image in the community.
It would be a loss to Wikibooks as he is an really active administrator, to make him lose interest in the community or feel that he have lost face, by my actions or yours.
As an aside and this must be made clear, if there is offside talking of the arbitration subject, they should be avoided, (I know that User:SBJohnny has an IRC presence on the Wikibooks channel and even User:Whiteknight mentions that some information regarding the blocking did occur in public with other Wikibookians and that there isn't a record of, as it is stated here, it is even my view that User:SBJohnny may even have been misinformed due to such discussions and lead to actions he normally would be more careful on performing.
I didn't have a particular problem with this cross talking in the past, it is not my main motivation in wikibooks to have friends and know people in general build up a social network here or my ego, but at present it must be made clear that I really don't wish to participate on said offsite discussions, or on site parallel discussions on the subject at hand and I ask you also to avoid doing so (on subject not on format), I don't want to have to deal with the other users and even future participants on the discussion at hand to be influenced by and from such discussions, my task on fighting a decision from a known administrator will be hard enough, a fair "jury" will probably be impossible but I will do my best, please ask (as it can't be imposed or verified) that other participants refrain on extending the already present social influences so to keep the proceeding clear, if I feel overwhelmed or I find other users participation unfair, as it is my right I will have no other resource that to appeal to a hight instance for any decision I fell was a result of an oriented attack to my defense, this indeed would create a huge problem to the whole community. --Panic 04:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Since this is in active arbitration at the moment, I'm going to refrain from trying to give my opinions on this prematurely. I do want to assure you that I intend to address many of these issues in my formal opinion that I intend to write, including in reference to the IRC conversations that seem to have occured, and the actions of SB Johnny. This opinion will be a part of the formal arbitration page. As far as if SB Johnny has agreed to this course of action, he certainly is participating, which implies conscent here. I think he was hoping I would rubber stamp his actions, which I have not done, but rather have made some serious inquiries as to what has happened. What I really need is information, not heated opinion, and that has unfortunately proven difficult to get. --Rob Horning 10:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You think I wanted you to "rubber stamp my actions"? --SB_Johnny | talk 11:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps too harsh of a term. I was pressured into performing actions on IRC that I thought were too drastic and getting involved with the dispute directly as a party. I'm still not completely sure why you pulled me into this, but I'm involved now. I do know you (Johnny) were seeking approval of your actions. --Rob Horning 11:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(reset tabs) Um, I don't know why you thought you were pressured... as was mentioned to you on IRC, someone else had already offered to step in (I have the logs if you'd like to review them). My message about the block on this talk page was becaue you were in a dialog with him on another page, and wanted to make sure you knew why he wouldn't be replying there (but that he could edit his talk)... see above[1]. My interest is not in getting approval for my actions (I'm perfectly comfortable with them), but rather in having someone else handle this, because I'm tired of it. As I had said to Panic, I'm not willing to adopt his case as a full time job, and at this point they really need another arbitrator because I'd really like to focus my energies elsewhere.

I've asked one of the Stewards to have a look at the situation just for good measure, as it's clearly getting a bit over the top now. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The information I'm looking for here and seeking to gather is going to be needed if the Stewards try to "intervene" anyway. I highly doubt they will get involved until this process is completed, and then only to review the actions taken, not to directly get involved. That is not a can of worms that they would care to open for a great many reasons. --Rob Horning 12:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
He's not "getting involved", he's just having a look-see (he knows more about wiki-arbitration than I do). --SB_Johnny | talk 16:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please address the problem that exists at this Arbitration talk page as soon as you can, and I request that you ask user Darklama to close his comments so we can pass to the next phase. --Panic 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What a mess

I've looked at the Talk:C++_Programming history and I don't find any recent discussion between SBJohnny and Panic2k4 there. The discussion seems to have occurred on User_talk:Panic2k4 and Wikibooks_talk:Ownership. The History of Talk:C++ Programming is interesting, though. Manual revert of 37 edits by 4 different users. --xixtas 04:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of my dispute with darklama is on my talk page it started after, if I remember correctly (don't go by my word) he moved the MFC part out of the C++ book without discussion. But my first interactions with darklama content deletion are in his talk page, as for any missing history I don't know if the previous administrator did merge the talk pages content (he should) and darklama did merge the "forked" book talk pages under consensus.
If you were checking the why of the block there isn't a reason for it, but my page moves were based in that darklama doesn't like the (actual) structure, the structure was not created by me but by the administrator that forced the merge, as for why he doesn't like it, well I don't know he never did explain it in detail, the changes he made to those pages (and that I reverted) were done while I was under a 2 week block (on a unrelated problem, and I still state wrongly so, but that is another problem), after that I restored them to the same state moved some posts to the proper places (context, like discussions on content etc), humm as I remember Paddu before the "fork" did do some reverts and I also, on that case the disputed changes were based my need to have specific guidelines and order on the discussion (I will see if I can get an example and post it here later), but you can probably mail Paddu, darklama and SBJohnny did contact him after I was blocked, see the other user talk page (the one on the C++ / Q&A page, the post in response to SBJohnny questions), if you have any more questions on the C++ book I will try to address them. --Panic 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have replied to you on User:Robert Horning talk page, but I would probably have to state some of this things some were later for him so it serves a dual purpose, please delete if it is a problem. --Panic 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I have checked the talk page history it seems all history before the "fork" are missing, if you can see what you can do User:Robert Horning, txs [User:Xixtas]] for pointing it out, I didn't check it because I didn't know talk history logs could be merged at the time. --Panic 07:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any questions for you, and I wouldn't ask them here anyway. This was intended to be a message from me to Rob in response to a query on my talk page. My interest in this action is strictly in what's fair, setting a good precedent for the future and avoiding further damage to the Wikibooks community as much as possible. --xixtas 20:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's all fairly civil but this Discussion removed from Talk:C++/Programming Functions is interesting reading. This happened right before the second block. --xixtas 01:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a Copyvio Tag Discussion and warning from Panic's talk page that has since disappeared that I hadn't seen before. --xixtas 01:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blogspot

The link on your blog to http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2006-October/002670.html is broken. I would have commented there but I do not have a Google account. --kwhitefoot 10:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sending Wikijunior Big Cats for Legal Deposit.

I need to send Big Cats in for Legal Deposit to Archives Canada. Are there any additions that should be made before I send it off (disclaimers, etc)? --Munchkinguy 01:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "What a mess" is an understatement

This is not a time to wax philosohpical Robert... nor is it a time to go asking opinions about what to do next. I have serious doubts about your judgement at this point (I have no doubts about your good intentions), and if you are unwilling or unable to take this process by the riens, I suggest you ask someone else to step in for you. I'm willing to take over until User:Swift has time to do this as a temporary measure, or else you can choose someone else. The way you've been handling this is unfair to me, and unfair to User:Panic2k4.

Wikibooks isn't a "neonatal" project anymore. Your hard work has paid off, and we have grown! Stand back now and be proud. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The process that I've taken has been under attack, and I've tried to defend that. Unfortunately, I also seem (from my viewpoint) to be under attack right now because I'm not rolling over and agreeing with your decisions here 100%. And as I've said earlier, you were drawn into this fight and have become a party to the whole thing. It is a very natural and human thing to do, and I'm not necessarily suggesting you are any less of a Wikibookian for having done so. But to continue to pretend that you are completely neutral in this matter is also not admiting to what is going on here.
BTW, I havn't really done much of anything here anyway. I certainly havn't "made a decision" or done anything directly to support Panic or your actions, or suggest that you should be deadmined here. I do think it is very reasonable, however, to question your actions (or mine for that matter) and to do a reasonable investigation to see if the actions taken were warrented. Performing a user block because of a content edit war is always a tricky action, and is something that should be strongly cautioned against except as an ultimate last resort. Much of this whole process is to see if your use of the user block was in fact justified and perhaps needs to be reimposed.
I am not asking opinions on what to do next, as I have been very clear about what I intended to do here. And you have participated in that process. The next step, BTW, is to let Panic have his chance to spill his guts and explain why he did everything. --Rob Horning 11:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Robert, I know you mean well, but you've really misunderstood the issues here, which is completely understandable because you haven't been around much lately. In you absence (an absence spent doing good things!), wikibooks has experienced something of a growth spurt. You're not being recieved well because you're a bit behind the times. I don't want to hurt your feelings, but I think you need to try and see how others see you right now... some of our "community leaders" don't know you at all, some (like me) just barely know you, and others who know you a bit better are getting very frustrated with you (especially with the textbook-l stuff).
Neither of the two metaphors below entirely fit the situation, but they do capture some of what's going on, and why you're getting into trouble. Don't take this too seriously. Do try to take a step back, breathe, and think.
  • First metaphor -- A Good (but divorced) Father goes away for a while to try and do some good in the world. He comes back to find his little girl is a young woman now, and tries to enforce some rules for her own good. When he was gone, the family got bigger, now with step-siblings who don't know their Good Stepdad. Good Stepdad makes a big show about telling Mother that he can handle this, and botches the job from step one (at least in the eyes of the kids... maybe in the eyes of the other Stepdad and Mom too).
  • Second metaphor -- A community in a snowy, long-wintered place finally get's itself organized, and arranges for regular snow plowing. One particular street never gets plowed, because that particular street has cars parked along the street, and the plowing company is worried about liability. The community bands together and insists that that street should be plowed too (the people who live there are community members too, after all!), but when it comes up in a council meeting, an elderly gentleman starts into a diatribe about how we (the townspeople) did perfectly fine without plowing before, and shouldn't try to force the plowing company to clear that street.
Take a step back, breathe, think. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images used in Wikijunior Big Cats

Robert, please take a look at the section titled "Unspecified source for Image:Snowcub.jpg" on John Burkitt's tak page. I know that you were involved with Wikijunior Big Cats and am wondering if you may be able to give any insight into his images. Many of them have no sources given. I came across a couple that were already tagged and then tagged a few mysyelf that were also on Commons but then stopped. I don't want them to be deleted if there is any possible way that we can find out their source — I stalled. Any information would be appreciated. Thanks, User:Iamunknown 06:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AP Computer Science Textbook

In the Computer Science wikibook discussion page you mentioned a textbook (written in the first-person) that you thought was very good for studying for the exam. I am self-studying, and am trying to find a good textbook to start out with. What book/s do you recommend? Please post your response on my wikipedia talk page if you can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WIZARD826 Thank you!! WIZARD826 07:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Done

Finished, uff, Whiteknight did lend me a hand with the spelling. --Panic 05:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikijunior New Title Policy/Unstable

I've edited this document and changed it so that it reflects my understanding of the new title practice currently in place. Please give it a look-see and comment. I think there has been a lot of confusion about Wikijunior's new title policy and that confusion may be adversely affecting potential new contributors. --xixtas 06:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do you want to volunteer as a potential member of editorial boards?

See Wikibooks:Volunteer_editors

Also Wikibooks:Editorial board,Wikibooks:Wikipublish and the discussion in the staff lounge. RobinH 15:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appologies

I would like to appologize to you if some of my earlier comments on the arbitration process came off as petulant or otherwise unfriendly. While I have some strong feelings on the matter, I don't want them to serve as some kind of dividing line between you and I, or between any other groups of wikibookians. Good luck on this and all your future projects. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. I understand that this is a heated process, where some very different opinions have been offered. I am not trying to belittle you either, and I hope that we can also work together to try and make this an incredible project that we all know it can be. I do believe that we have far more in common than what may divide us, and on that note, thanks again. --Rob Horning 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your thoughts on the staff lounge

If you have time and would like to get involved, please consider adding your thoughts to my staff lounge brainstorming page. --User:Iamunknown 05:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on Wikibooks:Deletion policy/Unstable

Just to inform you that the policy is up for discussion. --Panic 05:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Finale

I don't mean to step on your toes here, but considering the inactivity on the arbitration hearing, I've posted a potential solution on the talk page. I'm proposing that the arbitration be closed, and that no further action be taken against Johnny or Panic (with certain warnings sent to both users to avoid conduct like the kind that brought us into this mess in the first place). If everbody involved can agree, I think we should end this now, and focus our energy instead on ways to prevent these kinds of situations, and to formalize the arbitration process in a way that we can implement in the future. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Panic doesn't seem interested in my proposed solution to the problem, and instead is opting to hear what you have decided on the matter. With that in mind, you haven't spoken word one on this matter in nearly two weeks by my count. I request that you do whatever you need to do to end this matter, and soon.
This arbitration, while entered into with good intentions, is an open wound for our project. Some of our most valuable and prolific editors recently have been upset by the process, and the longer it continues, the more we risk to lose. A pervasive negative feeling has entered our community, and we are starting to pay the toll for it. I've been very patient with this whole thing, more patient perhaps then anybody should have been, but I'm prepared to raise hell if this whole mess doesnt get resolved. I don't mean to sound hostile towards you, but I am very serious about this matter, and am not willing to wait any longer. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

After talking to a large number of wikibookians, both publicly (on wiki), and privately (IRC and email), I have decided to end the arbitration hearing early. I have asked User:Withinfocus to read what information is available, and decide if action is necessary against either Panic or Johnny, if any. This arbitration was a deplorable mess, and I could not stand to leave it open any longer. I also feel that you have not met your commitments in this area, something that many wikibookians agree with.

I ask that you do not attempt to reopen the arbitration case, or undo any of my actions or User:Withinfocus' actions on this matter without receiving agreement from the community beforehand. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are assuming a huge amount of stuff here, and presuming a whole bunch on your part. You, Whiteknight, have been highly critical of this whole process and claiming that I was going to spell ruin to either my reputation. It surprises me that you are instead going to be taking the arrows in the back on this issue when clearly you wanted to keep yourself so clean from any final outcomes of this action.
BTW, excuse me (speaking rhetorically) for being a volunteer instead of a paid professional staff member here. Perhaps next time I need to start charging some sort of "court fee" or some other silly nonsense if I become a moderator? This is simply a very confrontational attitude to have toward this whole thing, and you seem to have missed the point of what I was trying to do here. The whole thing needed a chance to cool down and let everybody take a break from trying to be so confrontational. It appears as though you have decided to enter the fray here and be confrontational to me as well.
Unknown to me when I started this whole process, I ended up having a few personal issues that have come into my life where I havn't been able to spend quite so much time on this one particular issue. Especially over the past couple of weeks. I felt that to properly come up with some proper remedies and to hear everybody on a fair and impartial basis, as well as to review logs and other items, I needed some more time to go through everything that was presented and give it a good review. Full-time professional judges in similar situations would demand nothing less, BTW. And they are people with considerable experience and several full-time assistants who are able to work with them to help prepare formal briefs and do other tasks that I am only able to do on a very part-time volunteer basis. There have been other issues in my life that have been much more pressing, especially as they relate to trying to teach an adolescent on how to live his life where I have primary parental responsibilities. Enough said. Please in the future learn how to treat volunteers much better than this, if you ever care to have any stick around. --Rob Horning 23:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Rob, I'm hoping that you can see that the decision made isn't an attack on you; it was a collective, collaborative decision made for the best of the community. I wasn't involved in that, but as it seems to me that you were not able (and this is no criticism; life takes priority over Wikibooks) to notify people of your absence or an expected return date, I can understand that the consensus was that action was appropriate in your absence. It might be good to take some time to consider that others were not intending to be confrontational; as an observer, your willingness to revert actions of others may be well-intended but could itself easily be seen as confrontational rather than consensus-based. I believe you meant well, and that your contributions are valuable -- in this case though, circumstances meant that you were not in a position to address the community's perceived needs. I hope that soon you will see this largely unfortunate episode not as one of adversarial stances between admins but as one where there were difficulties in resolving a situation and a number of people with good intentions had troubling finding common ground. In the last few days I've seen new names editing the C++ Programming book, and if that's a sign of a trend then it's a good thing; whether the calming effect of this storm on that book is involved or not we will probably never know. It *is* tough handling perceived criticism when working as a volunteer -- but do try to remember that, online as in life, it's best not to assume malice where incompetence or misfortune is an equally good explanation.
Thank you for your efforts in working to resolve this. There was no win-win situation available, I fear, but the damage still need not be extensive or lasting. Accepting that all admins involved have acted in good faith, even when there are differences of opinion on how best to proceed, could go a long way towards reestablishing a cooperative atmosphere. -- James Dennett 02:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do see this as a very personal attack against me, particularly when threats of wheel warring have been made against me. I am very curious about what forii were being used in this situation for achieving a "concenus" on this issue? IRC? off-line e-mail exchanges? Phone calls? It certainly was not transparent, nor was the discussion directly listed or even pointed to and discussed on the decision page. I don't even see who was pushing for this final outcome.
Furthermore, what I strongly resent was that the process I had established to try and come up with a formal resolution to this (trying to decide what actual actions should happen) was not followed nor apparently even understood. Precisely to stop the mob mentality that seems to have taken over here, I requested that those who wanted a certain course of action to take place (like a six month user block) speak their piece with room for the "defendant" to reply and suggest perhaps another course of action. This did not occur, but instead "frontier justice" took over. This was not a community decision, but rather the decision of a minority of Wikibooks users who happen to be in close contact with each other. What happened here with Panic is a miscarriage of justice. --Rob Horning 14:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
First off, I do not mean this to be a personal attack on you, more an attack on the process. I never threatened to wheel war with you, I asked only that you receive community support before any attempt to reopen this matter. Even the notes to you that I have struck out did not contain any such threat, and I would appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of that sort of thing. We may not agree on this issue, but that doesn't mean that I am being uncivil, unhelpful, or breaking any sort of rules around here.
I don't feel like you got enough community support to start this process in the first place, a fact that has been bothersome from the beginning. You meant well, that much is undoubtedly certain, and you certainly care for this project. I won't question your motives, nor will I disparage your volunteer efforts here when there are clearly more pressing matters for you to attend to in your real life. However, nobody asked you to take these responsibilities onto yourself, and nobody forced you to start a long and convoluted arbitration process to deal with this mess. In starting this process, you made a committment, and in the end you were not able to do what you needed to do in a reasonable amount of time.
Even if you aren't able to spend lots of time on this project, there are several users on this site that do spend many hours on a daily basis here. We have an amazing core of active people here who, every day, are here breathing life into this little project. What alarms me is when a number of these users start talking about leaving this project forever because of this nonsense. Besides the people who felt victimized by Panic originally (and threatened to leave because the administrative staff here were apparently unable to take decisive action), there was also User:SBJohnny went from being a mediator in a content dispute to being a defendant in an arbitration. We went overnight from a community who prizes trusted users who are encouraged to use their judgement, to a community where suddenly that judgement is suspect and open to endless attacks and accusations of "abuse of power". There was no disagreement, except from the defendant about disciplinary action taken against him at the time, and the only criticism came from people who felt the admins did not act quickly enough. On Panic's request, you created an arbitration that this community did not agree to, and one for which there is a precident against. You expect us all to just wait around for you to return in this condition?
I ended the arbitration because I perceived the negative aspects of it as far outweighing the potential positive ones. I've used my best judgement in resolving this problem, and I don't think that I violated any policy, any guideline, or any behavioral norm in doing so. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 04:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Decision

There are many things to say about this issue. Unfortunately you were not available during an extremely important time here and you're seeing the necessary actions that had to be taken, actions that didn't have to happen if the process and Panic were handled appropriately earlier. Let me remind you that no consensus ever established your "arbitration process" as the proper solution, even though several parties participated in it for some time. As the "arbitrator" you had the crucial duty of watching this process which you abandoned for over a week, an unacceptable lack of action.

For one, three extremely prominent users and admins here were so distraught over this process and stagnancy that they seriously considered leaving the project, something that would have been terrible for the community. In many ways this process ripped apart the sense of community we have here with its rushed set-up and use. You might consider my action blunt, but I considered it the proper solution to end the already lost process. Panic's comments became more and more insulting, abrasive, and uncivil, never approaching a solution but merely trying to justify himself as doing all the right things and being some sort of victim. Numerous users across the project have noted their agitation towards what was happening and became more and more angered as Panic continued his soapbox. Plenty of opportunities for comments were given and a solution became less and less achievable as time went on.

Panic had months to remedy his attitude and actions and continued to verbally abuse his once-enthusiastic fellow book-writers through the arbitration process. Panic repeated the same statements again and again that he doesn't think he did anything wrong and that no one can prove anything, yet he somehow continues writing because he's "trying to learn" or something along those lines. We have all spent way too long playing along with this fruitless game of arguing and so it was stopped.

You can see the boost of community involvement and relief here now that the arbitration has been ended. The performed action was what the community wanted and so Whiteknight and I acted on it, representing the community. I have no vendetta against Panic and have had little to no contact with him before this process. I read all the "choice words" he and the other parties placed on the page, listened to what many users thought I should do and what they thought of the process, and performed an action I truly believe is correct. That it differed from your process that no one approved of is not an issue. I was not hostile whatsoever.

Panic needs to leave the project for some time to get his attitude straight and over these six months he will hopefully learn how to better interact with users and be a thoughtful, collaborative contributor to a book. Panic would have never stopped responding in his currently abrasive form and no one active was interested in wasting time with the argument. Since Panic has been stopped at our site, he has gone to a Steward who has also denied any requests of his. Jimbo Wales will also most likely ignore his e-mail entirely and the process will hopefully truly end. It may even take a block at Meta to stop his comments.

Almost nothing has been immediate in this drawn out process. We have all heard the issues over and over again. There should be no appeal process. This was a community decision and you are going against that decision, something that I am greatly disappointed with considering all this talk about fairness. This decision has positively impacted Wikibooks and the community wishes that it not continue. -withinfocus 02:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what "not being available" here meant. You certainly did not e-mail me asking me for any help or advise, or asking me if I was willing to turn this over to anybody else. You did not post this on Textbook-l asking for some general help, or in your case even ask me politely even on this talk page if it would be reasonable to take over from me. There is enough information on my various pages that if you wanted, you could have even given me a telephone call. There have been other ways to contact me if you had cared.
What I see here is a virtual equivalent of an unruly lynch mob that has taken over, by a very small sub-set of the Wikibooks community where you and Whiteknight have assumed you are speaking for the "majority" of the community but I am insisting that you are speaking out only for a very vocal minority. This is one of the things I was specifically trying to protect again, and I believe you have gone way beyond your "authority".
I also fail to see why you had to perform the actions you have done here to this degree.
As to why Jimbo is ignoring his e-mails on this issue, all I can say is "Wow"! You apparently have not been following that Jimbo is intentionally stepping back from Wikimedia projects in general and refusing to become an arbitrator for petty little decisions like this in particular. To suggest that you were trying to bring Jimbo into this process speaks volumes about what I think happened here.... this is just a lynch mob where a bunch of people didn't like one particular user.
No justice or reasonable impartiality took place in this situation, and the preceedence in regards for Wikibooks is going to be permanently harmed if this sort of situation is repeated. This is not the end of this particular situation. --Rob Horning 13:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice in the future that if you have a response to me, please indicate it on my talk page like all other conversations around here go. Nonetheless, I believe this will be my final comment on this issue since we're all moving on (besides yourself perhaps, but there are no further places to take this issue in Wikimedia and I consider all this over). Perhaps in six months we can discuss it again in a celebratory sort of way when we welcome Panic back.
You were definitely unavailable. For one, this is the Internet and doing something like calling you on the phone I find ridiculous and would never do. Whiteknight wrote many messages on your talk page over several days and also e-mailed you. I find those actions more than enough of an attempt to get your attention and am not interested in mailing lists. Since you were so caught up on not being a professional but a volunteer here, I don't see how we're supposed to use any other communication methods to contact you. You should be active at the site you had a duty to and we shouldn't have to hunt you down wherever you are about a process that you neglected. Furthermore, I don't remember signing over legal Wikibooks rights for you to handle business here. Again, since you're a volunteer, others can come in and volunteer too. We don't need your permission to do something here and the matter was becoming especially urgent as well. Even though we don't need that permission, we still tried to talk to you about it anyway and you were unresponsive. I care plenty about Wikibooks and for you to suggest that I don't is offensive to me, but I'll move on.
I'm not buddies with Wales nor do I care to be and therefore I'm not up on his recent moods and fancies. Wales shouldn't be involved in this at all and it's Panic ridiculous attitude that even suggested he be involved. Redux seems to have fully convinced him however that this is the end and the action is final. I don't understand what you're saying about me involving Wales since I have no interest in that whatsoever since I believe our community took care of this. Also, I have had no interaction with Panic before this besides possibly one or two talk page messages about trivial matters. I developed my decision through Panic's arbitration write-up and constant bad attitude which I'm mentioning here again for probably the twenty-fifth time. Don't try to say I'm "picking on him" since he created that opinion himself.
If this arbitration had gone through and you had not blocked Panic for a significant period, there would have been a large portion of active users leaving the project. I hope you would have gathered that before making a decision had you been active these past two weeks. I still am one hundred percent confident that I was impartial in this matter due to my almost total non-contact with Panic before this process began. I formed my opinions and ideas from reading the process. You are far less impartial than I am in this matter. Wikibooks users are quite pleased that this process has ended and are now working on forming an actual consensus opinion on how to handle this now at Wikibooks:Resolving disputes. We certainly will avoid this situation in the future since none of us want to do it, including this unfortunate first and last time it will happen by the looks of how users are commenting on the above page.
The actual decision had nothing to do with you other than you didn't do the job you took on and so others had to try to repair it. There is no personal attack and I have no problem with you. Next time make a mention of your absence at least so that we can try to work with it if you're doing something crucial in the future. -withinfocus 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I take some offense to the accusation that because we have disagreed with you, or because we have acted against your plan or your wishes that we either (a) don't understand the wikibooks community, or (b) we have descended into an "unruly lynch mob". Any kind of accusation of mob mentality, or an accusation that we are acting without the appropriate forethought in this matter is highly offensive, and I believe that it is groundless. User:SBJohnny was completely neutral during the original mediation when he decided that Panic needed to be disciplined. Because of my involvement in the matter, I asked User:Withinfocus to handle the final actions in the arbitration, because I knew that he was completely neutral. I went so far as to ask User:Derbeth, our only other active bureaucrat, to avoid the discussion entirely, for fear of getting him involved in the situation (and therefore, potentially, developing a bias on the matter when and if it devolved after the arbitration was ended). Forethought, planning, contemplation, and reflection have all been properly exercised in this matter, and everybody acted in their best judgement, without reducing to a mere "lynch mob". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
PS. As an addendum, I wanted to poi