Wikibooks:Arbitration/Panic2k4 vs. SBJohnny/Defendant Rebuttal
I have now given enough information on where I stand and what I defend, on this arbitration and in any of my actions I don't see myself represented in any of the accusations, I don't have any history of "disruptive behavior" even if some users have that idea, it is without basis.
I don't see "reverting" as an aggressive act while it doesn't involve the "destruction" of content (if not spam). I have been reverted many times before and during the arbitration and will probably see my edits reverted in the future, I have no problem with it and if I had I would address the users that did the reversions if I don't see a reason for it.
I have no difficulty and I'm even accustomed to work with others, but I grant you that a few users had a problem with my view for my work here and in all these years of active involvement on Wikibooks you have now a good idea on how many disagreements I had. (2, Paddu and Darklama)
I have been a good contributor to Wikibooks and I object having Darklama's problems in working with me stated as my problems, Darklama's has violated several policies and guidelines and even legal impositions and my civility on dealing and engaging the user in discussion is portrayed as my inability to deal with others, nothing could be more far from the truth as can be attested by the number of contributors to the books I work on clearly demonstrate.
My actions on Wikibooks do speak for themselves if the reader takes the chance to examine them, but I do not agree that any other cause or past event should be used to validate the reasons for the block that brought us to this Arbitration.
I have taken the time to provide the reader some information on the background since the accusation seems to imply that it had a bearing on its actions.
As I stated before the attempt to involve Paddu in this discussion (that has nothing directly related with the C++ Book) was (as I tried to hint in my colorful illustration, the involvement of North Korea on the fight against terrorism) wrong, as the subjects and events of my divergence with Paddu don't have any bearing or prove any of the points the accusation tries to validate, they were of importance and significance but the Wikibooks community failed to provide a viable solution at the time, I found one and took the chance to make use of it and so ended that dispute, as Paddu can and will confirm if asked, he was not actively contributing to the book in question (there were contributions made by him but he had stopped contributing content long before I started), I even recognize the right of precedence to Paddu, since he was there before I came (this isn't generally recognized in Wikibooks or at least they recently aren't), Paddu's divergence with me was on the format and scope of the book (even the actual forking proposal does state that they can be a base for a fork), I was adding content that Paddu thought shouldn't be on the book and I was using a format he didn't like (I was using a monolithic approach much like Darklama merge of several pages on a single one), this facilitated me to provide the book a better flow and order, since I started working on it, Paddu did not add any content and was only defending his vision for the work, even after the fork the original work stalled (I and a few others were the only ones contributing actively to it), at that time and after a few structural changes to the original book (some of the content I added and changes were approved by Paddu, he stopped using Wikibooks).
Paddu was also involved at the time in other Wikibooks discussions, policy and general improvements and in helping new users, I don't see as the fork was the bases for Paddu to quit Wikibooks but I can understand as it being a factor on his decision(you have to ask him that), I never tried to engage Paddu since he had stated he did not had the time or disposition to add content to any of the books. (and the "fork" solution was only taken because we were actively reverting each others changes, I take the blame for the "fork" as that was the only solution viable at the time, and it worked, all this can be gathered form the history files or by directly asking any me or Paddu about it)
The resulting work or "the forked" (Programming:C -/- -/-) continued it's evolution on his own namespace with several users participating actively on it up to the forced merge, the general community (or some admins if you prefer) at the time took into themselves to force the merge, even against what I consider a proper approval of the decision to force a merge, I took the time to fight the merge (I was the only of both books communities, if you like) even taking care to defend Paddu's view points and different intentions for the original book since he wasn't present at the time (can't remember if I did send him a email or not, I think I did). (I also take this time to correct the stated page history problem, there isn't one, a fork is an independent version of a work the history logs don't need to be merged, the only need is to give credit to the original work and authors, it was and it is still maintained after the merge, some credits are given to the "forked" version since the result of the merge substituted the original work and the "fork" was deleted)
More, Paddu's involvement was clearly an attempt to provide more fodder and bases to validate wrongful actions, this is simply too clear as the only persons contacted by the other party were the ones they saw has having a problem with me, in this case they were wrong my problem with Paddu ended after the fork, I did not engage the user or performed any action on the "original" work after it, I and Paddu didn't like the solution but it did solve our problems, at the time as I wasn't interested in debating simple change as was happening, I was more interested in adding content to the books, I see the creation of disputes as the primary factor to reduce my creative contribution to the projects I'm involved and a major reason of frustration to any user, that is why I can comprehend Darklama's stance on the problem and it was that point that did get me a bit angry in seeing the other user getting pulled into our divergence, since the "forced" merge I have taken the time to become more involved with the community to try to address some of it's structural problems and so I have carefully addressed Darklama's actions and proposals in a very civil and contained way.
If Paddu has some points that he thinks should be addressed he is free to propose/request any change and if there is a need to restore any pages histories please don't blame me or any of my actions, check how the merge was performed, 90% is a simple move of my "forked" version, I did not initiate the merge (I did help with the moving of some pages as requested, but not the main talk or other primary sections of the work), I never stopped working on it since I've started, I did at least one edit a week.
So it seems to me clear that the if the accusation didn't already know this facts, it didn't spend any time finding about them, it is also clear on the last statement by SB_Johnny, he doesn't have a good understanding on what did happen at that time (the fork), and on the evolution/history of the book or even a unbiased understanding on Darklama's actions, even so, he claims to be acting on his interpretations those events, events that don't have nothing to do with the actual problem(s) he indicated as being addressing and are stated on the block logs and seem to be now the base of the accusation.
The accusation bases all the blocks in my inability to be civil even if the Wikibooks:Be civil has a very high degree of interpretations, I have so far proven that I never violated the core premise of the policy, that is to respect my neighbors and keep being civil and the accusation fails to prove that point.
All the blocks were made without properly addressing the Wikibooks:Blocking Policy, I'm not a vandal, I did not engage in actively reverting pages, I did not break any policy (even if I did the policy clearly states "Admins should only do this as a last resort - efforts to educate must be made first, followed by warnings." this was not followed and blocks were done on the spot) and finally I'm not a troublemaker and I'm contributing to Wikibooks goals that is a particular factor for me being still here defending what I think should be corrected and avoided in the future. Even the timeout of the block is a clear abuse of the policy as an active vandal is given only a 24h block, more, the policy clearly states that "Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute is prohibited." (I have demonstrated that there is a clear convergence or cooperation with the users SBJohnny and Darklama)
I have provided extensive information on the several blocks events, as the accusation sees them as a chain of events that lead to its final action and the one that resulted in this arbitration, I think it is now obvious that the action was (failing other description) "abusive".
Since the accusation fails to correct any of his assertions, I must again clearly state that user James Dennet was not a new user, he is only an unexperienced user to Wikibooks, he has been collaborating here almost as long as I.
- " If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth. "
- Paul Joseph Goebbles, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany
All these lies may now be considered facts, but factual truths can prove all to be myths. I think I have already provided enough proof to refute any of the facts taken as justification for the charges made against me. On the other hand no proof was presented so far that would validate any of the charges, or to change my mind on my request for the removal of the block, the arbitration even provided some actions and facts that I now seen in a new and darker light.
SB_Johnny & Darklama
It is now clear that there is convergence, cooperation and coordination between the users SBJohnny and Darklama, I made some assumptions and since no rebuttal addressed those interpretations or the facts I brought so far to the reader attention, it is still one of the points that must be granted greater attention.
All that I have to say to the accusation I have already stated and the accusation did not provide any new evidence or information that I need to address. There was a small shift on the accusation to the Paddu event I think I have now cleared up. They are in complete agreement as was expected and the actions indicate, it's with some dismay that I can't understand why SBJohnny took this path as even if he was misinformed he should have taken the time to get a better understanding of the problem or just excused himself from taking action on this way, after the second block I made clear to SBJohnny that I had the right to and would address any action I took as unfair.
A Wikibookian few "possessions" or traits include his reputation, his contributions log and other permanent logs of his activities, that includes the users block log, this is the yard stick by one is judged and recognized by his pears.
Reputation is very volatile thing and is built on how others perceive events or take the time to check the facts it is the most easy way to cause damage to another user and the most hard to correct and only time and or the ever changing community can restore, permanent logs are forever, not even time will fix them , that is why so much trouble was taken in making clear to administrators to use the block function with especial attention and that it should only be used in extreme situations as is clearly stated in MediaWiki Administrator's Handbook/User Block, so, since I consider that the blocking action that generated this arbitration was not fair and even broke the Wikibooks:Assume_good_faith in regards to my actions among other considerations that I have by now demonstrated.
My participation on the moderation isn't only based on my wish to have the block removed it is also as a demonstration that users in general can be easy prey from abuse, even more if they don't participate on the community, most users are anonymous contributors that came here to participate temporarily on one or two projects, they wish not to be involved on the bigger scope of the Wikibooks project or take an active participation in the community, I doubt that an unknown user to the community would have been given the chance or would be willing to get himself involved in this sort of discussions/debates/proceedings, this only demonstrates that such actions do really deserve extra care and should not be executed in the way it was implemented in this case as I think I have demonstrated.
All the blocks had they even had a valid motive as stated by the accusation could and should be addressed first by discussion and only acted upon as stated on the block policy after a clear warning to comply or correct the users actions in accord to active policies (not guidelines, since guidelines are not enforcible) failed, it is now demonstrated that not even this steps were taken.
And so, sadly, this is why we are here. --Panic 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)