Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance

Request the reposition of the C++ Programming/TOC1 into the C++ Programming location in accord with the adopted book convention that defines that the "Cover page will display the historical book index..." the discussion of the subject was opened in 13 March 2008, closed 19 July 2008, in the meanwhile a reassessment was done on a related issue (the deletion of another page), but again no opposition was stated.
To avoid similar conflicts I request that a move protection be reinstated on the C++ Programming after the moves. Originally it was move protected also, performed by Mshonle as an administrator. --Panic (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the issue is still a pending action, I take the chance to make a note that the original talk page of the "cover"/entry page to this Wikibook is located in Talk:C++ Programming but the original project page and its edit history was moved to C++ Programming/TOC1 when proceeding with the requested action don't forget to join the two again (project/talk). --Panic (talk) 01:28, 1 September 3008 (UTC)

Please point to which discussion took place after the VFD, where there is a consensus among book contributors to move C++ Programming/TOC1 in this manner.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 14:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I also fail to see any discussion after the VFD. I can only find discussion from last year which favors the deletion of TOC1. --darklama 14:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion page is on the request. Lack of participation constitutes lack of objections, no objection is by default a consensual decission (if properly formalized, that is why for instance some of our community decission have special requirements). There is no limit or a required participation number, if that was the point you are attempting to make. People are free to express their wishes on the proper discussion page but are not obligated to do it. --Panic (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Darklama I thank you for not objecting so we could have the problem solved, but you should certainly have in mind that it all this was originated by you, the initial action you took with administrative tools to move and alter edit histories even unlocking the original move protection of the page in the question, with a standing objection makes the above comment at least ironical. Considering the history and after you stated a desire of non involvement taking such a blocking position now doesn't seem quite right. --Panic (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a strange notion of consensus. I will certainly not be taking any action on this issue at this time.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The lack of consensus is reflected by the differences in theoretical positions or when two or more parties are in disagreement, in this case there weren't any parties, a proposal was made in the standard way all proposals have been made. At intervals in time I'm the only one working on a given book but you seem to be implying that all probable parties must express an opinion this isn't so not even on community decisions. --Panic (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not blocking anything or involving myself in it other then to restate what I said before. I see no change in consensus because no new discussion has taken place in over a year. All you have done is initiated a proposal, but discussion has not taken place. It is the lack of any further discussion that is blocking any change, not me. You must discuss it with the other book contributors (not me) in order for changes to happen, but they are not obligated to discuss it. --darklama 17:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That logic is circular. I can claim that there aren't any other book contributors working presently on the book.

What you are stating is that a discussion must be made to occur, I for one don't participate in discussions were I have no interest, why should I expect others to, people on this project aren't obligated to do nothing, they do it voluntarily or they don't. I could probably hunt down several editors to justify that a discussion was made but then you would probably claim that they weren't enough or the right ones... Interested people were aware of the discussion thats enough. --Panic (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that discussion must occur first before this change will happen. Its adoption is blocked by lack of of a consensus discussion. Lack of discussion could mean that people are fine with how things are now besides you, that people are too busy to discuss the matter right now, people have said all they want to say about it and see no need to discuss it any further, or could mean any number of other things. The protection exists because an admin felt that the response to a disagreement was inappropriate, trying to assign blame is not going to resolve the issue. The only way this issue is likely to be resolved is by discussion occurring, and no admin is likely to take any action before then. --darklama 18:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You are equating a consensual discussion as consensus, they aren't the same the first isn't required to occur. "Lack of discussion could mean that people are fine with how things are now besides you" not so, the method is pretty clear on it after 7 days with no stated objection the proposal is passed. I'm again made to remind your that even you executed proposals on those terms, I really don't understand what point are you attempting to make here, you seem to be defending a position that you stated isn't yours in the name of inexistent divergent opinion form an existent third party.

Can we invalidate every policy and guideline were I didn't get to express my support or even my opinion?!?

If I'm away and unable to participate will it stall every decisions were I have previously participated ? --Panic (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A consensus discussion is required to occur in this case because a disagreement arose, an admin protected the page to prevent any further actions from occurring in the intern and because that is what the general consensus appears to be for how it should be resolved by those who you have asked to take action. Your absence would only block a decision if the people involved at the time felt that it should. Decisions are fluid and not carved in stone and can be reversed when there is a general consensus by people who are present that a decision should be reversed. You can propose invalidating every policy and guideline where you didn't get to express your support or opinion if you wish. People who are present are unlikely to agree, so it is likely there will be no consensus to do so. --darklama 18:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll address your interpretation by please consider that it is you own view but not stated in police, guidelines or common practice.

When will you consider a disagreement closed? Do you require a a written statement of disengagement? This is not viable due to the volatile and voluntary nature of participation, this would result on unclosed discussions just because one or more participants chose intentionally or otherwise not to participate. Even more problematic would it become if status quo was not preserved, as it wasn't on this instance, that is, as it stands it indicates that any user can impose his own wishes without consequences or impediment.

If you are referring to the cover page were indeed an edit conflict arose, you have to take in consideration you own actions on the subject if you failed to validate the same modus operandi for you action how can you require for it to be applied in actions made in response to it, that seems unbalanced. More can you name the users that engaged on that conflict? The edits weren't even done by editors of the book. --Panic (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is little point in you addressing any interpretations. There is no logic involved. What actions are taken and how any policy or guideline is applied can change with the situation, the people involved at the time, and what the general consensus is. In this situation your going to need contributors to that book to participate in the discussions, voice opinions on what should be changed in written form on wiki, and come to some sort of consensus, before anything changes, regardless of any individual's interpretation. The issue won't be considered resolved until people participate in the discussion and consensus has been reached in the way that the people you are asking to take action agree with. This is a viable solution because it does and has worked for other situations. Participation is always voluntary on Wikibooks for all situations. Every admin could also choose to no longer discussion this issue with you until you've done as has been said, in effect ignoring your request completely until its been done, or even choose to ignore any request you make completely, as any action at all is voluntary. --darklama 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Darkcode is exactly right. There are no rules that state an admin or any other Wikibookian must do anything. Only an admin can determine how to use his tools, if they are to be used at all. I have made my decision on this issue, and I like to think it was reasonable enough that other admins will agree with it as well. Of course, this isn't a mandate either, other admins could decide that my decision was flawed and needs to be reviewed or even reversed. That's fine too. I would like to ask all admins who are interested in this issue to try their hardest to gather historical information on the conflict. Unfortunately, because of significant shuffleing and archving of relevant talk pages, it will be difficult (if not impossible) to gather enough information to make a good decision. Maybe there are other admins here who are better detectives then I am, so if you like a challenge this is for you. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been digging through the page history, and I can post some diff links here later if people are interested in more information about this issue. However, from what I can see there are a number of objections made on that talk page against the action that User:Panic2k4 is suggesting. Several users, when asked, stated that they preferred TOC2 over TOC1 for a number of reasons. Myself, User:Darklama, User:James Dennett and User:Xixtas all appear to be in support of TOC2. We have raised several objections against deletion of TOC2 and adoption of TOC1, none of which have been adequately addressed or resolved. Stating that there is now consensus despite these unaccounted-for objections is ludicrous. I need to do more digging, but I suspect that there are other objections raised in the course of that conversation also.

Raising the same proposal twice, without any changes, is the same as raising a single proposal. You can't ignore previous answers just because you asked the question twice. If people have already answered and given their opinions, they should not be required to give them again to prevent being railroaded. To prove the point I will try to post some difflinks later to show what objections have been raised and what issues need to be resolved before forward progress can proceed. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"In this situation your going to need contributors to that book to participate in the discussions, voice opinions on what should be changed in written form on wiki, and come to some sort of consensus, before anything changes, regardless of any individual's interpretation." again requirement that a actual discussion takes place is only on your head, you only must provide an idea for other to express objection and grant them a chance to do it. I'm not imposing anything on any one an established and known format for approval exists, at this point I'm the only one that has been consistently editing the book for some time, if you like another example were a similar decission structure exist you should take a look into the P2P book, but in this case no objection was expressed, therefore not objection exists and so consensus is not broken. But we are rehashing the above posts, people aren't forced to participate in discussions, and again you defense of that point is ironical and erodes you credibility if you have changed so dramatically you view on the subject just solve this by reverting your own actions. --Panic (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Darkcode is wrong. I agree Darklama (Darkcode on IRC) and yourself aren't obliged to take any action, as I said endless times no one is forced to do anything here.

Again Whiteknight you are deflecting the issue on the table. I take the decission as taken and now final it only needs to be implemented (or you need to be consistent and validate why it is invalid and proceed to revert all unlawful decisions before this one, in particular I point you to the substitution of the title page in question), you are now asked to act on the request. Your previous refusal to not take action has clearly been proven as invalid.

The new angle forwarded by Darklama now is that all decisions need to have a stated discussion (it would be funny not to speedy delete for example) that is even if a book has only one editor he musts find someone to argue a point with him, and that previous stated objections don't have a time-frame validity, they will stand forever until recanted. More he seems to imply that consensus means complete agreement (what I fully support) but that is not what Whiteknight defends, the common practice nor a requirement on the decission taking policy at this time. --Panic (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the previous discussions and expressed opinions, they don't deal exclusively to the issue that was decided now, some deal with the existence of multiple tocs (to what I don't object), to you estrange solution of merging the two tocs (impractical since functionally they serve the same purpose, index the same pages, what is divergent is the order that each gives to the book, and that is impractical how can you give structure, flow to a work without a structure) and ultimately each comment made so far even if they should be acknowledged were done by people that until that time (and after the posts) had no dealing with the book or any discussion regarding it, and I can provide more and more recent posts of people requiring the page to be deleted (I remind you that you are making all this noise for a page that hasn't been maintained for more than a year and creates a problem that I've shown affects the utilization of the book, even providing numbers to back my statement). Failing to act/take a stand on the request by yourself or others will result in me having to require the administrative tools to execute them myself, I don't wish and never intended to be an administrator but if that is the only way the proposal gets implemented without dragging anyone into all this wasteful time sink, I'll go for it. --Panic (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)