Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions

Welcome to the Administrative Assistance reading room. You can request assistance from administrators for handling a variety of problems here and alert them about problems which may require special actions not normally used during regular content editing. Please be patient as administrators are often quite busy with either their own projects or trying to perform general maintenance and cleanup.

You can deal with most vandalism yourself: fix it, then warn the user. If there is repeated vandalism by one user, lots of vandalism on a single page, or vandalism from many users, tell an admin here, or in #wikibooks (say !admin to get attention).

For more general questions and assistance that doesn't require an administrator, please use the Assistance Reading Room.

Hi Artix here[edit]

Hi all,

If you have noticed, I've been globally locked. It was a good run though. I was falsely accused of sockpuppetry that is being unblocked. An appeal is in t he works for an unblock. Unfortunately, the sock block quickly spiralled out of control as other users decided to hunt across wiki and block me on several other wikis. Thus it was proper for a lock by a steward, as it was not worth continuing as a user with this username.

Much thanks to several users who made my time on wikibooks awesome. Shoutout to Atcovi, Pi zero, and QuiteUnusual for being friendly people and helpful to my enrichment. It was awesome editing the articles for the Guide to the Lord of the Rings and the Inheritance Cycle. Some day perhaps, I will come back and finish those books. Cheers. It was a pleasure.

protection please[edit]

for Favonian's talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by (discusscontribs) 19:07, 6 June 2018

I blocked the most recent user to vandalize that page. As talk pages are meant to be particularly open, I'm reluctant to apply semi-protection there without a direct request from the owner's account. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 19:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[edit] This user is inserting gibberish to many pages, forcing me to manually revert them. Additionally, a warning to his talk page was responded by more gibberish and then he/she blanked his/her user page. A block should be applied. Thanks. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 18:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 18:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

NCEA Level 1 Science[edit]

The audience for this book is young high school students. Please set the view level to stable by default. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 05:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: I've set all the pages and templates (everything in the book category and its template subcategory) to stable view. There are, iirc, two pages and one template with pending changes. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 13:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[edit]

His edits are eerly like a sockpuppet (see the previous IP address; it's very much similar). Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 17:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: Blocked for a week.

That wikilink can also be produced by markup [[Special:Contributions/]]. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 19:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Quantum theory of observation[edit]

I would welcome help, advice, and whatever other comments my admin colleagues can offer on the following situation.

User:Thierry Dugnolle has been (frankly) agitating for the right to own books since they arrived here. Recently User:Leaderboard (who has requested adminship) noticed they were claiming ownership over this book, and removed the claim. The author refused to accept the removal. I offered my support to Leaderboard, sensing both a certain caution as a relatively junior member of the Wikibooks team and that, recalling past dealings with the author, the support would be wanted in any case. The author's insistence on their right to own the book has now reached the level of the "three-revert rule" definition of edit warring; I note that the three-revert rule, although in my experience a fairly standard rule of thumb across the wikimedia sisterhood, has afaict no official status here, and our blocking policy, while common-sensically acknowledging that admins must exercise their own discretion on the length of blocks, suggests bringing the question here when in doubt. I am in any case uncertain how best to proceed, because, although it seems to me perfectly defensible to give them, say, a 24-hour block for edit-warring, the ideal purpose of a one-day block is to give a misbehaving user an opportunity to calm down and reflect on their misbehavior, and frankly I don't think it would have that effect; I would anticipate them finishing the 24 hours with steam coming out of their ears, no useful calming of the situation having been achieved. (Perhaps they'd take it better coming from a different admin? With a different length? Idk.) I candidly do not relish the prospect of driving the author away from Wikibooks, as imho they have useful expertise to contribute if they are willing to offer it to a collaborative project, although I admit that the project would be, at extremum, better off without them than with them insisting on their right to use the project as a non-collaborative web host.

The principle of collaboration is, I observe, so foundational to the project that it's largely woven into the fabric of things rather than being explicitly listed as a standalone item. For example, {{Bigwelcome}} starts out with the one-line summation "Wikibooks is for collaborative development of free textbooks." The page WB:OWN was created by prominent Wikibookians of the day with the intent to clarify this important point about the unacceptability of personal editorial control, appears to have gotten side-tracked by another Wikibookian's effort to turn it to copyright instead, and, as often happens with such things, was never made "official". WB:HOST is, afaik, the most direct ["official"] statement that personal editorial control over a book is patently unacceptable.

I do not consider the current state of affairs, in which Thierry Dugnolle insists on asserting ownership over the book (and, I think, several others), to be at all consistent with the long-term health of the Wikibooks community. Granting that that is not acceptable, I would also rather not lose Thierry Dugnolle as a contributor, which is the direction I see things sliding in. If someone can suggest a route to a better outcome, I'd be most interested to hear. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 18:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we could split the difference by authorizing any collaborator to the Thierry's books (at least one page), to add their name on the covers too...
FYI, on the French Wikibooks no one has collaborated to them either, so this situation is not really handled yet, even if signing the books is now explicitly allowed. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 19:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Even on Wikinews, we don't allow bylines — even though most news articles are written by a single reporter (turns out multi-reporter news articles are usually more logistical trouble tham they're worth). Occasionally when we publish an interview we mention the name of the interviewer, though not always even then. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
A clarification on my position in this regard. Thierry Dugnolle intends to blatantly defy the basic principles of this project, in a manner that causes long-term cumulative damage to the project as long as it continues. Splitting the difference is not a viable solution. I would rather not lose Thierry Dugnolle as a contributor —I have a weakness for not giving up on people— but even that would be less bad than allowing this to continue. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 01:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I think Pi zero misrepresents the situation : here is how the discussion started: "It looks like a pet "theory" of this user. And I don't think Wikibooks is the right place to spread pet theories, especially not into articles about actual science" from Mfb. I'm a professional. I don't work in Wikibooks under a pseudonym. With my work I defend my professional honor. I think that Wikibooks should respect workers and professionalism. Do you think I want to lose my time discussing with users who lose theirs to insult me? The authorship right I claim is a protection against bad practices, against users who don't respect work and professionalism.
About the reverted edits: after Mfb insulted me, Leaderboard felt free to remove my name again from the front page of the book I wrote. I reverted the edit again and claimed my authorship right, that no one can modify this book against my will. A lengthy discussion followed where I tried to explain that I wanted freedom of thought to be respected. I've been told that my idea of freedom was against the rules. Pi zero removed my name twice and I reverted the edits twice. I always gave my reasons before reverting the edits. I don't think that freedom of thought is respected if authors can't write the textbooks they want to write the way they want to write them. Authorship and cooperation are not mutually exclusive. --TD (discusscontribs) 05:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't expecting that this would spiral into such a heated argument. I had encountered one such instance before when the author was doing the same; and upon my request, he attributed himself correctly. I'm surprised that Therry isn't doing the same - what's he got to lose by this - after all, placing at the bottom of the page is still prominent enough (like what class projects do)? To this, he argues that it's his own work - true, but my stance to this is that that doesn't get him any extra privilege to attribute the way he wants it. After all, on Wikibooks, he's just like any other editor, even within his 'own' wikibook. He refuses to accept that.
I'm also not pleased with the way he handles it. His essay on 'cooperative' reading warns wannabe opposers not to try that as he thinks he's the best on verbal fighting (i.e, dictactorship, which he accuses Pi zero of). This itself gives rise to the claim that he's forcing things the way he alone wants it. I held back after the initial rounds of argument as I realized that continuing to revert his edits would simply lead to a dangerous edit war.
And about @Mfb:'s edits to a related book which started off all this: He didn't seem to like Therry's work, but I reverted his edit as well as I found no evidence that Therry was telling incorrect facts and that the mere fact that he linked to a wikibook which he mainly developed is not a reason to claim 'self-promotion' considering that the topics were related. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 06:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
You misunderstand my warning. It's not an order, just a warning. I'm an old wikipedian and wikibookian and I'm used to users who like bad controversy. I warn them that their sophisms can't beat me. That's all.
What's the difference, at the top or at the bottom? Why such a mess for nothing? --TD (discusscontribs) 06:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The difference is that when you put your name at the top, you are claiming to have editorial control, which is contrary to the nature of the project, telling other authors to go away and not touch your work and thereby systematically damaging the project.

You aren't an "old Wikibookian", at least not in the sense of someone who understands the project. You've consistently failed to understand the nature of collaborative authorship. As demonstrated by the fact that you routinely take it as a personal affront when anyone asks questions about content that you happen to have written. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It's again a false accusation. In User:Thierry Dugnolle/Cooperative reading I say precisely the opposite.--TD (discusscontribs) 14:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
This practice looks just like PHP Programming/Contributors to me. And it's frankly common, like on v:WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Editors.
So I propose to stop the interventionism or interference (apart from the usual {{BookCat}}, spams and copyvios), in order to let the books been freely developed by to their authors like they would want to, or they may find another site to proceed. We have many other maintenance tasks to do before.
A way to list or normalize these cases would be to create a template of book signature. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 14:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
We have lots of other things to do, but there is nothing more important than preventing a user from abusing Wikibooks as a web host. That is telling the general citizenry of the internet that they are not welcome on the project, and it is therefore virulently destructive to the project, driving contributors away and thereby systematically destroying its future. Thierry Dugnolle routinely blatantly lies (quite possibly they've deluded themselves into these absurdities like the claim that not letting others contribute to "their" books is cooperative) and counts on being rewarded for it by other people deciding it isn't worth bothering to stand up for the principles of the project. But, it is worth it, if we care about the future of the project. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

That's now getting into a huge mess. First off, it is concerning that there are so few users who are willing to contribute to this discussion. @QuiteUnusual:, your views on this deluge?

  • "You misunderstand my warning. It's not an order, just a warning." Your warning is as good as an order. There's actually no difference.I'll remove that text (at least!).
  • You are now linking your essay to that wikibook which are quite unrelated. Why? The problem (which I and Pi zero have been repeating) is that this gives a false impression that you own the wikibook. The essay itself should be deleted.
  • "I refuse your modification of my work because I don't like it." You don't have the right to do this. Anyone is free to modify any wikibook, unless of course it is done in bad faith or the added content is incorrect. Should that be the case, you'll have a case to say. That being said, this is physics, and hence should not have the problem of 'alternative viewpoints'/NPOV disputes which would be expected from such a discussion. It's correct or incorrect (in which case you can obviously correct it)
  • "Original research for educational purposes": Funny, I wonder why the edits I made to topics like How_To_Assemble_A_Desktop_PC aren't considered as 'original'; Theirry Dugnolle's edits seem as original as that. Again, it's physics, not history.
  • and the evergreen question: Why is it so hard to simply notify readers of your work at the bottom in a section like "Contributors"? Problem solved. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 18:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Wiki in Wikipedia: "Wiki [...] in that the content is created without any defined owner or leader, [...]" The fact that anybody can edit a wikibook, imho automatically removes the right to claim authorship. If you want to be a single author on a book, I think Wikibooks isn't the right place to put it. --Johannes Bo (discusscontribs) 10:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Well put, though I would point out that in the years of this project I've only heard of maybe one major kerfuffle over content of a book; after weeding out obvious vandals, most folks here are generally intelligent, reasonable, and here to bring about free textbooks, and given those things, any more specific questions can be worked out. So I do not believe there is any obstacle to a professional contributing content — only to a professional, or anyone else, claiming to own that content once placed here. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 13:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll allow some additional time here, in case QU has ability and inclination to chime in, given that they were pinged. As I said at the start, I was hoping someone might have a better alternative to the straightforward but quite possibly suboptimal measures I would take in this matter; and I have held off on those measures for some time now. However, unless something comes up here that hasn't yet, after some further interval (perhaps another day or so?), I will proceed with the postponed measures. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 20:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Johannes Bo: This definition of Wiki-ness is well adapted to Wikipedia but not to all the other projects. For example, it would exclude Commons. In Wikibooks this definition exclude textbook authors like me who want to write their books freely, their own way. Are you sure we should be excluded? I want to cooperate with readers who want to cooperate. A reader who modifies my book whereas he knows that he disagrees with me is not cooperating. He only wants conflict and lengthy and sterile discussions. I claim the authorship right to refuse any unwanted modification because I don't like bad controversy. This is common practice on many Wikimedia projects, why not here ? Why should the english-speaking Wikibooks be an exception ?
@Pi zero: You should realize that your behavior is not acceptable, that your continued campaign of false accusations, insinuations and threats is harrasment, and that it is very harmful to the project. You should welcome textbook authors, not harass them. I'm not harmful to the project because I gave three finished textbooks to it, I'm only harmful to your idea of the project. And it's a very peculiar one. You claim that readers should have the right to harass authors. Without the authorship right to refuse unwanted modifications, any malevolent reader like you can harass all authors.--TD (discusscontribs) 02:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Thierry Dugnolle is clearly deluded that others can not edit their "wikibook". Wikibooks is a publisher, and it permits anyone to edit any book (I am talking only about the helpful edits). Anyone, even if they are the only author of that book can not bar anyone from editing the "wikibook" they wrote. And as long as the terms of CC BY-SA 3.0/GNU FDL are taken care of, there should be no issue; none of the contributors can demand their preferred way of attribution, especially not in the form which appears to endorse them. That is not the case. Wikibooks is not like GitBook. If any editor wants to stop any other editor from modifying the "wikibook", they do not understand the basic principle and philosophy of the project. They should first read the project policies, dos and don'ts as well as the guidelines.
acagastya  💭 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Acagastya: I cannot prevent anyone from editing the wikibooks I wrote, but I always can revert their edits if they are malevolent. The rule is : in case of editorial conflict, the author or authors of the wikibook always win. Can you find a case where this rule has not been respected? I'm not deluded. The authorship right I claim is a right I already have. If a reader insist on modifications of the wikibooks I wrote against my will, he or she is clearly malevolent and cannot win against me if there is conflict.--TD (discusscontribs) 04:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
You claim to be not deluded, yet you said "...claimed my authorship right, that no one can modify this book against my will". This project does not run per your will. And nobody can stop anyone to make the modifications to any book. I said what the guidelines say. If you had red them, you would have known. But, FWIW, everyone who has contributed to the book is the author of the book, even if their edits were later removed. All this time I have been saying about the helpful edits only. And if your ego is hurt because someone made an edit against your will, and you call them "malevolent", there is something seriously wrong with your understanding of this project. And if you are hellbent for preventing anyone to edit against your will, and despite being told otherwise, you really should consider moving to GitBook as a public wiki like en.wb can be edited by anyone.
acagastya  💭 05:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
May be not all those who insist on modifications against the author or authors's will are malevolent. In my case it happened only once. The present lengthy and sterile discussion followed. Like many others you can deny my authorship right but you can't deprive me of it. I am the single contributor of three finished textbooks. Who could have the right to modify them if I think their modifications are bad for the books? Who could decide it except me?--TD (discusscontribs) 05:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The reason why this was kept away from Wikibooks is: imagine someone writing a shitty book about any topic, and preventing anyone from making any modification. Or imagine someone with a propaganda writing a book, and prevented anyone from editing it. Nobody is saying you are not to owner of the text you wrote. But you chose to release it under CC BY-SA and GNU FDL licence and as long as anyone is keeping up with those licence terms, Wikibooks, as a publisher is not going to bar them, and they become your co-authors, whether you like it or not.
acagastya  💭 05:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The problem you mention is a separate issue. Rules of acceptable content suffice to solve it. If a reader proves scientifically that I am wrong, it will be a much wanted contribution. But if a contribution doesn't meet my scientific standards, it won't be admitted in the textbooks I wrote. In the very hypothetical case of a truly scientific controversy, I have the final word for the main book. My opponent can still expose another point of view in the discussion page. --TD (discusscontribs) 06:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It's really, really simple. If you revert other contributors' content because you don't like it, or because you think you have control, then you'll be warned and then blocked - indefinitely if necessary. It is black and white: keep behaving like this and you'll be leaving the project. If someone else removes your name from the top of the book, and you revert it again, I'll consider that a violation of policy. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 12:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

My name is useful information. Why encourage a malevolent reader who suppresses useful information? If you din't like the sentence "The best way to end these sterile discussions is to say : I refuse your modification of my work because I don't like it." and if you want to cooperate, give your reasons in the discussion page before threatening me. Moreover your policy means that I will have to justify myself in long and sterile discussions like this each time a malevolent reader wants to harass me. If Leaderboard or Pi zero or you don't like my presentation, you can modify it and give your reasons, you don't need to erase my name, which is clearly malevolent. An author has the right to identify himself. --TD (discusscontribs) 14:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
(ec) For the record, you are not certified proven 100% correct. The saying is, "Empty vessels make the most noise". Revert is not the only way, on Wikibooks to work. I have mentioned it earlier, I say it again. I mean only the helpful edits. If the only thing you rely on is 'revert', it is misuse of your rights. And, it is important to attribute, which the Wikiproject does (see the link "Cite this page"), but at the end, what the message says is more important than who says it, unless in very few circumstances, which isn't, for this one.
acagastya  💭 14:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Why again a false accusation? I never said I would revert helpful edits.--TD (discusscontribs) 15:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
(ec) When I thought you finally understood, Thierry Dugnolle, you bring up this shit again. An edit to your a "Wikibook" you have authored is not a "threat" to you, but if you feel otherwise, I really suggest you to clear your misconceptions immediately by reading the guidelines. When you hit the "Publish changes" button, you are allowing Wikibooks -- the publisher -- the right to allow anyone to make helpful edits even if it goes against your will. Now one more time if you say this, I would request an admin to interfere and issue a block to keep you away from the project until you understand the project goals to grasp the concept and philosophies of Wikibooks. If you can not comply with the current guidelines, I am afraid -- if you have written three "wikibooks" or three hundred, you are not suitable to be on the project. While releasing the content under CC BY-SA (and GNU FDL), you waive some of your rights from the content, and some remain. Wikibooks is not your personal wiki. If you are looking for something like that, use ShoutWiki or GitBook. I use it for the content I really want to "own". Pi zero has been nice to you, seeing a potential good editor in you; but I do not believe there are separate "angels" and "devils", they are there in every person, and when the good part is locked in the trunk and the bad part is driving the truck, that is the sign when we need preventive measures.
acagastya  💭 15:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Re you accusing me of false accusations, you are blind to see anyone's edit as helpful as ou do not fully grasp the knowledge of this project. English Wikibooks is a separate project with its own guidelines and uniqueness. It may have same sisterhood with English Wikipedia or French Wikinews, but it is not the same.
acagastya  💭 15:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Again a false accusation: "you are blind to see anyone's edit as helpful". I work in Wikibooks since 2004. I had a few times the chance to benefit from helpful edits. But usually no one intervened in the wikibooks I wrote, neither cooperatively nor malevolently. The suppression of my name is the first malevolent modification.--TD (discusscontribs) 15:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"If Leaderboard or Pi zero or you don't like my presentation, you can modify it and give your reasons, you don't need to erase my name, which is clearly malevolent. An author has the right to identify himself." I had clearly mentioned why that has to be modified (it makes people think that you own the wikibook), which you did not accept. That being said, I've reverted that change; while the essay link stays removed, I've reincluded the author name at a more agreeable location. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 15:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that your conclusion is that you, Pi zero and all my opponents have been cooperating, that you explained to the poor moron I am the philosophy of the project, and that all this long and sterile discussion was a way to help me. I think differently. If such behavior is the rule in the english-speaking Wikibooks, most professional textbook authors won't like to work here, simply because they don't like long and sterile discussions. You seem to think that because you didn't like my presentation, which suggested to you that I am the owner of the book (in Wikibooks it means nothing, no one owns any book) I had to obey and to change my presentation because you didn't like it. Is it how you think about cooperation?--TD (discusscontribs) 15:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
You consider Pi zero and Leaderboard as your opponents, and you speak about "cooperating". Wow! I surely need time to let that sink in. The "cooperation" which you are speaking about, it should happen with the guidelines. "It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows". No matter since when you are on the project, if you do not understand the philosophy of the project, and the legality, it is pointless.
acagastya  💭 16:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
It seems you don't know I didn't start this discussion. Leaderboard and Pi zero did, because they erased my name in the front page of the wikibook I wrote. Pi zero and many others already explained to me with many, many words their philosophy and the legality of the project. I think I understood, and I approved the legality, not their philosophy.
About the legality: the rule and the practice on Wikimedia projects is that editorial conflicts never degenerate into legal conflicts. I agree with this rule. The harrassment I reported is not a threat of legal conflict. It would be absurd, because unfortunately such harassment is common use. Many wikibookians like controversy but they almost never respect the truth and the good rules of rational discussion, hence false accusations and insinuations. This is why their discussions are always or almost always sterile.
I'm very surprised that you think a professional textbook author like me shall be excluded from the english-speaking Wikibooks because I don't approve your philosophy of the project.
I said that Pi zero should welcome and respect all professional textbook authors. I think this is the duty of every administrator of this site, because an educational library needs professional textbook authors. If they think differently, I think this is very harmful to this project. But for the wikibooks I wrote, I dont' care, because opponents can deny my authorship right but they can't deprive me of it.
You wrote that I 'm "not certified proven 100% correct". This is true. But if you think my scientific writings are wrong, you are free to prove it, and to publish it on this site.
I'm tired of this discussion. I won't feel obliged to answer to future false accusations or insinuations.--TD (discusscontribs) 18:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)--TD (discusscontribs) 17:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
That is the problem with you that you consider yourself on a higher rank just because you are a "professional book author". (in all fairness, internet search results gave me no results to prove that point) As long as you are going to consider others who are in this discussion as your "opponents", you are wasting everyone's time and are harming the project. Going against the philosophies of the project is harming it.
acagastya  💭 18:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Again a false accusation : "you consider yourself on a higher rank just because you are a "professional book author". In Wikibooks we are all equal, any user has an equal right to contradict me. This is precisely why I like the principle of Wikibooks, but not the reality, because too often wikibookians don't respect the truth and are satisfied with false accusations.
To state that I'm a professional textbook author isn't against the equality of rights. Anyone can state the same if they think that their work deserves such a title. If you think that my scientific writings are not good, you have to prove it. If you can't, don't judge them.--TD (discusscontribs) 18:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Contradicting to what you said above, aren't you? "I said that Pi zero should welcome and respect all professional textbook authors. I think this is the duty of every administrator of this site, because an educational library needs professional textbook authors." So many great books are written by editors who are not professional authors, so why do you even speak about one set of people? Wikibooks is not like your regular publishing company. Gosh, this discussion is still going on. You know what, I will leave up to admins and you do decide your fate with this attitude.
acagastya  💭 18:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not like you. I never suggested that wikibookians shall not write the wikibooks they want. If they like your philosophy, I don't see any problem with that. They can write the wikibooks they want. I will never interfere with their work. I respect freedom. --TD (discusscontribs) 19:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
This is a shared project; and not an individual one. You not interfering with other's work does not prevent anyone from editing yours. That is the only thing I have been trying to tell you, but you have been repeatedly bringing the topic about how your are a "professional author", and your scientific discoveries are correct and how someone needs to prove you wrong and all the things which has nothing to do with a particular book, but is a concept for every book on this project. (discuss) 19:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
You don't know what this discussion is about. Of course, others can edit my books as much as they want.--TD (discusscontribs) 19:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
That is a false accusation. And this discussion is pointing to a particular incident, but will serve the purpose of archival record for other editors who are confused just like you. (discuss) 19:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand. What is my false accusation?--TD (discusscontribs) 19:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change of block conditions[edit]

Here's an update, and a proposal for possible feedback from other admins.

Update: Thierry Dugnolle did what they'd been told would be considered a policy violation, and I (pi zero) gave them a block with a duration of one week, which I intended to be long enough to be taken seriously and hopefully allow them to do some soul-searching; candidly, I figured if they were going to choose to participate in the Wikibooks community without asserting editorial control of the book, they would reach that choice with a one-week block. They have extensively protested on their user talk page that those telling them they don't have the right to editorial control of their book are making false accusations and harassing them, and after a few days of that they requested an unblock on the grounds that there were no grounds for a block. Until the unblock request, I had been mostly just letting them rant, except for one attempt to help with some technical information (not particularly successfully; I gave it up after it appeared they were unreceptive to help from me even on a purely technical point). I offered some comments on the unblock request, as blocking admin. QuiteUnusual supported my position and declined the request. At that point, Thierry Dugnolle stated openly that (a) they do not accept the policy for whose violation they were blocked, and (b) they intend to re-violate it as soon as the block expires.

Proposal: Rather than the imho pointless exercise of expiry, re-violation, re-block, I propose to take Thierry Dugnolle at their word and change the block duration to indefinite. Blocks are, after all, a preventative tool.

Thoughts, anyone? --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 23:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to oppose preemptive indefinite block unless warning the blocked user about it.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 03:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Despite his defiance, I'd still go for a staggered block duration as I still wish he deeply thinks through the reasoning of the block and start listening to the community, considering that's the only issue with him. After all, he is not a spambot/vandal. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 04:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. My own sense is that it's a complete fantasy they'd ever listen to the community; they put their authority fundamentally above the community's on project policy, just as they do on edits to the book. But, if others are less confident on that point, we'll do this the slow-and-painful way. (Jusjih: I don't think they can be conversed with anymore, precluding negotiation. If the community isn't comfortable just having done with it, the alternative is, to use Leaderboard's term, staggering.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 05:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
TD is not a native english speaker. What you describe as a rant seems to be looking up words in a dictionary and picking not the right one. Words like harrasment or accusation have a certain aggresive notion to them. After 20 years of learning and speaking english, i had to look up the word insinuation in a dictionary. Right now i think that TD is behind a language barrier, not being able to state his case in a sensible way. Seen this often on the Stackexchange sites; the writings of a user can be read either way: rude ... or very very polite. Letters themselve don't carry emotions, the reader adds them. That being said, we as normal human beings shouldn't lose oure heads and get emotional. What i like, would be to calm the situation down for a moment, and explain TD in his native langauage why we are harrasing him (nobody is) and let him give a statement in his native tongue (which at least one of the admins can translate to english). I personally don't like to block a user contributing but on the other hand, the wikibooks project is based on some rules, we users have agreed on and have to obey.--Johannes Bo (discusscontribs) 05:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
An alternative way could be to not say: You reverting edits is wrong. Don't do it again, you will be blocked might be: Hi and thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately, you cannot have a book on your own on the wikibooks project. Have a look at Gitbook (or similar) where you can write a book yourself, without anyone being able to edit. You can keep control of content. There is one thing though: once the content is published here, you cannot remove it and claim copyright. Is that the case? --Johannes Bo (discusscontribs) 06:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The point is well taken, that possible translation difficulties should be taken into account. One should however also keep in mind that the user is extremely articulate in English when they want to be; and some concepts come through very clearly regardless of whether a few of the more esoteric words are perfectly chosen. We'll see what another round of communication brings (another round of communication appears to be resulting from their awareness of this discussion). --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 10:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Unprotect Bartending/Cocktails/Singapore Sling[edit]

hi, last vandal is in 4 years, likely can unprotect. I am trying to change the 7% tax per 2009 to 7% goods and service tax per 2018 . source Thanks--Cohaf (discusscontribs) 22:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cohaf: Well, it's only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit it in a couple of days. Looking at the page history, the vandalism was remarkably bad, and the semi-protection cut that off entirely, which seems like a plausible reason to leave it in place. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 00:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: notef with thanks, I didn't scrutinize the history just thought it's weird to semi a 4 years untouched page --Cohaf (discusscontribs) 00:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cohaf: It's actually quite common for a given book, or a given page of a given book, to not be touched for long periods of time. Occasionally people will come along and do some work on a book. Adopting a book is a common thing on Wikibooks, which one does cautiously but, at some point, one may conclude that previous contributors to a book are no longer around. A wiki depends on bringing multiple sets of eyeballs to bear on a page, but how it's done can differ between projects; on Wikipedia, one hopes to get a bunch of people all working on a given page at the same time; on Wikinews, there's a mandatory review process that doesn't allow a news article to be published until it's been thoroughly vetted by an authorized reviewer not involved in writing the article; and on Wikibooks, collaborators on a given page are often separated in time, so that they might never meet each other as each leaves before the next arrives. It tends to make us fairly respectful of those who came before, as we hope our contributions will be farily respected by those who come after us. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 02:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I understood now, I'm having Wikipedia mentality. thanks for explaining. can you help to review my pending changes also..thanks.--Cohaf (discusscontribs) 02:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Done --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 02:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Autoreviewer for a couple of users[edit]

I think the following users should get Autoreview permissions:

  1. User:Holdoffhunger: His edits are always minor and contributive (normally removing duplicated words or similar), but his edits (in terms of volume) are like that of a bot. In fact, his edits flooded RC (even more annoying is that it clogs the pending changes requiring review) with the same (correct) summary: "Remove double "the."".
  2. User:Samuel.dellit: Making excellent contributive edits to a book, I doubt he will meet the conditions for reviewer as he mainly edits only a few pages.

I did not post this in RFP as I thought autoreview is not a sufficiently high level for me to 'nominate' these users. Thanks. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 05:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

As it turns out, Samuel.delit was autopromoted to reviewer about 15 hours after you suggested this, and Holdoffhunger about 6 hours after that. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 02:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)