Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2010/September

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm not seeing the Vector toolbar (pictured at right) when using Firefox on Wikibooks. I get the toolbar to appear with no problems at Wikipedia and if I use Internet Explorer when browsing Wikibooks, it appears then. I am wondering if this is a problem for anyone else. – Adrignola talk 13:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me right now in Firefox. I'm not using Firefox for Windows though. --darklama 14:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered the problem. The AJAX sysop gadget causes the toolbar to disappear in Firefox. – Adrignola talk 14:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figure a lot of gadgets will need to be updated to work with Vector and that will be easier now that more people use Vector. --darklama 15:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

• I think, style of the new article box should be changed. I propose to change the border color. The style that I propose is as follows:

Srhat (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems innocuous enough and works with Vector, so I made the change. – Adrignola talk 23:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to bring the issue to the community attention for an examination of the subject as to obtain a validation/repudiation for what has been happening, something that should have been done as the user was locally blocked (per block comment).

User User:Thekohser (registered here since 19 June 2008, has a history of valid contributions to the project, no violations of local rules) seems to have been targeted first by a global lock (meta::Global blocking ?), that was turned into a local block by User:Pathoschild (holding the steward flag). SUL status of Thekohser accounts, of note that it isn't blocked in all listed project and that the comment of the local block doesn't seem to have been updated on that listing, in regards to the considerations given to the local community), block was later changed «with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (requested by Jimbo for disruption/trolling at http://en.wikiversity.org/?diff=548143 (global lock changed to local block to let local community change it)) duration of infinity as of 12 May 2010.» by User:Mike.lifeguard (holding the admin, bureaucrat, checkuser and steward flags), that prevented the users from being contacted and to request an unblock (none of the listed unblock requests were performed by User:Thekohser).

The user recently seems to have registered a sock-puppet (see Wikibooks:Sockpuppets draft) User:Thekohser-v.2, SUL status of Thekohser-v.2 (no clear intention to hide the action but a circumvention of the previous block, no other violation of local stipulations).

This information has been covered previously in the User talk:Thekohser and User talk:Thekohser-v.2.
This also has an indirect relation with the previous thread.

There are several questions that should be answered regarding how and why the process has evolved, and finally come to a Wikibooks decision in regards to the user as was intentioned by the change of the "global lock" to a local block. As this should be discussed in order we should start by the end as event are more recent and may require quick action to prevent the aggravation of the situation.
For those that are not aware the Wikibooks:Blocking policy is still a draft (even if it lists most of the normal procedure), some information given on this discussion should be user to upgrade the proposal regarding precedence and the capability of other projects to enforce a limitation on local users rights.

Starting in reverse order:

1. What is the status of the User:Thekohser-v.2 ? (locally it doesn't register as blocked)
2. Since User:Thekohser is blocked with an infinity block, if User:Thekohser-v.2 is a sock-puppet it should receive a block, per previous practice (it was done to me) as it was deemed as constituting a circumvention of the previous block. Any objection to a check user and a change of the present situation (?) to a local block if verified ?
3. Removal of the lock that prevents email contact and the user to edit his own talkpage. This removes the user the ability to pursue a reintegration into the project. This limitation of the users freedoms should only occur in situations of a extreme bad behavior. Any objection ?
4. Since the user hasn't been locally disruptive, per the contrary, he has contributed valid content before and after the actions, a chance for reintegration should be welcomed. As per the original block the community should have the say on this subject (also note that the "global lock" has to have a time limit and that the local block was of infinite duration). If the user then requests an unblock and per User:Pathoschild block comment, we shall consider it in the form of reaching consensus for a block (since the origin is external, in case of a failing to reach consensus, it should mean the removal of the block). The request for unblock should be made public here at Wikibooks:Reading room/General but run in the user's talkpage, so he can participate. A chance for the first comments in response should be given to User:Pathoschild and User:Mike.lifeguard as the acting "admins" on this matter (within 7 days after the UR), as to clarify the situation to the rest of the community in an orderly fashion. Any objection ? (note that this will require a unblock request by the affected user) --Panic (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Wikibooks:Blocking policy remains draft, there is no firm ground to question administrators' blocks. Any action regarding the situation must have community consensus; otherwise it devolves into wheel-warring. I am somewhat troubled by the initial conversion of the global lock to local blocks, meaning that a steward came in to perform a block without community consensus. Links above also missed the critical discussion of note with this request for a "global ban enforcement" which seems to be asking the local community to do what is normally up to stewards. But Mike is also a steward, convoluting things further. Borrowing words from the linked discussion, I don't find it palatable to "swallow our principles". Let's define our principles and stand by them. – Adrignola talk 17:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, prevention of Gregory Kohs from participating at Wikibooks is based on a request by Jimbo that Greg be banned. I don't understand why any Wikimedia functionary would act upon such a request. In particular, the actions by Stewards against Greg all seem to be violations of the rules that must be followed by Stewards. Statements such as, "You cannot request that Thekohser be unblocked. Furthermore, he is banned on all WMF projects" seem obviously false and I don't understand why anyone who makes such statements is allowed to retain a position of trust and responsibility at Wikibooks. I've asked Jyothis to explain where Greg was banned, but I doubt if Greg was ever banned. I think Greg's accounts should be unblocked and he should be allowed to continue editing. --JWSurf (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is why I said we should use this discussion to refine the draft, especially in the dealing with outside decisions.

I find most of the steps taken strange as I as part of the local community wasn't informed, I also wasn't aware of this global lock thing and as I read it it seems clear that it wasn't designed to be used like this, my view point is that if a user is able to have a sane dialog he doesn't need to be blocked without explicitly doing harm to a project, the only reason to block a rational user is to suppress him or his viewpoints.

Regarding the steward intervention, I take that User:Thekohser-v.2 is in a similar situation of "global lock" ? What is the time frame ? Is the lock on the IP ? Does it also lock the user out of projects that decided not to locally block the supposed owner of the new account ?

JWSurf, I think it is clear that blocking a local user on a external decision process is wrong, I would even claim that actions of the user outside of the project are weak arguments to support a local block. The local community has not been impacted by those actions, mostly is is not even aware of them and has no power to intervene, verify and act on them. This fact was made clear by what User:Adrignola stated by "I am somewhat troubled by the initial conversion of the global lock to local blocks", from the action I read that the steward saw the original "global lock" action as infringing on the rights of decision of the local communities affected by it (and he stated so in the comment), I don't know if the statement of User:Adrignola covers the choice of performing a local block but the alternative was a defacto undo to the "global lock", in any case if we deal with the User:Thekohser-v.2 account situation we can begin to understand what is the prevailing ruling and if the right process is been used. --Panic (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thekohser-v.2 is indeed also globally locked. The time frame is indefinite. The lock is not on the IP. Gregory Kohs (named already by user on user page and JWSchmidt) could easily register a new account if he wanted to (and did). However, any new account that identifies itself as Kohs will receive similar treatment, as the block is targeted at the person and not the account. A global lock locks the user out of all projects where you see the SUL status for the local account as attached. That is the only reason he can still edit at Commons and Wikisource, as the local accounts are unattached. This does not mean we are powerless as a community. A bureaucrat can rename the user in question to a temporary username and then rename it back. That detaches the local account from the unified login, preventing the global lock from applying locally. The one exception to a global lock is Meta, where the user can request an unblock. This is not possible for Kohs, as his talk page access there is blocked (and only the latest block settings permitted email access). – Adrignola talk 12:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your read on the use of the "globally lock"?

I have near to none experience outside of this project. I have however read one or two things and previously did attempt to make some appeals to a steward, he made it pretty clear that he had no power to intervene without the direct support of the local community.

My feeling is that the "global lock" has been subverted to uses that it wasn't created for (without getting into the text of meta::Global blocking, it doesn't seem to be a policy or a guideline, but some effort was made to clearly avoid stating that it should be used for this type of actions (I already made note of time frame for the duration of a "global lock"). This new function given to it and the subsequent actions where outside of the functions of a steward (I haven't see no opposition to this interpretation). We can even presume that the local intervention was an attempt to correct the corruption of the the "global lock" function, but without a clear intention to address the core subject. In fact I would say that there was two major fails the use of the "global lock" and the attempt to locally correct it.

Has anyone pointed out to the new "user" of the "global lock" function that people did feel that it shouldn't be used for that function. Is there a discussion that dealt with the first undo of the "global lock"? So we can understand why the "error" was committed again?

Do you see any impediment to validate not the action but the intention as I pointed in point 2 to substitute "again" the "global lock" by a local block (I don't know if a check user is necessary), in accordance to previous practice, since the user seems to have created it to circumvent the original block.

I think that these actions are clearly based on previous events and wouldn't benefit anyone or change anything besides the enforcement of local policy above external pressures, so we can deal with the root causes. --Panic (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that global locking does not have a clearly defined policy and that in this case may have been a result of annoyance encountered at Meta and promotional userpages created across multiple wikis. Pathoschild should not have implemented a local block and Mike.lifeguard has a conflict of interest in implementing a local block in addition to a global lock. This isn't to say anything about him or his actions, but it then makes it impossible to judge actions as either admin or steward actions. I can say for sure that it would have been inappropriate as a steward, but as an admin, there is no policy to judge. There is no need to CU Thekohser-v.2 as it passes the duck test. If I've neglected any other questions, please state them succinctly for me. – Adrignola talk 14:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you object to as an admin, substitute the "global lock" for a local block, as per the previously mention reasons and based on the previously mentioned actions ? I think you as an admin should act, not only on those ground but as a way to simplify the problem as we, the local community, can't really do nothing about fixing the problem with the "global lock" (I do intend to post something there and think everyone should do the same).

Do you know if on the other project that aren't blocking the user if any provision exists or was created to address this type of "external" action ?

I see the global lock useful for the stated functions on the text and expect that a similar use on any anonymous user wouldn't cause any problem. In any case I don't think that this discussion should cover more that in generic terms the actions of Pathoschild and Mike, as things are so badly defined the community hasn't really anything to enforce on the subject (we even doen't have a block policy), is up for the user to pursue the issues further... --Panic (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some communities do have policies governing what stewards are and are not allowed to do there that has not already been prohibited by Stewards policy. You can see them in a section of that page. I object to substituting a local block for a global lock and if we had a stipulation like Wikipedia's that stewards should not perform actions that could be performed locally, this wouldn't have happened. I've started a draft policy at Wikibooks:Global rights policy. There will be no progress in this whole thread as not enough people are providing input to develop policies and the user is blocked and any socks will likely be blocked. When a community is weak, such as ours, it will be steamrolled over by outsiders as seen at Wikiversity. As for "I think you as an admin should act", you need to state specifically what it is you want, before I can consider action. – Adrignola talk 15:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you, or any other admin, should replicate the action previously done by Pathoschild and substitute the global lock by a local block. That action would be in accordance to the previous action and shouldn't require any special gartering of consensus or broad participation. It wouldn't constitute an act against anyone here on our project and it would put the matter under wikibooks sole control, in that it would be beneficial to our project. It would also enable to free the user to, if we fail to address steps 3 and 4 to request an unblock of the new account on the grounds that the community failed to address the core issue of the first "global lock" and consequent block of the primary account.

I don't particularly agree with your view that our community is weak, the problem seems that most Wikibookians only act on their narrower set of interests and in general aren't inclined to participate in broader policy discussions. I shared that view but was made to realize that I had to take a more active role to the detriment of the subject and activity that I would best prefer to spend my effort and time. In fact I'm spending the time in this particular issue just to prevent what I see in general terms as an unfair treatment of a fellow wikibookian. In my first block I found myself in a similar situation, the unblock request function was broken and a similar attempt was made to block my participation in my personal talk page.

In this particular case I don't see any special requirements on the number of participants, in fact I think that logic is faulty and with time it should be properly corrected on our local rules. In cases of greater impact I see a necessity of being seconded on a proposal, that may be important as not to let someone assume undo-liberties, but in small issues and in response to similar unvalidated actions, like these ones. Isolated decisions in two occasion by a single acting Wikibookian, I see the requirement of a broader participation as an hindrance to perform necessary corrections and in general terms unfair. --Panic (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────────────────────────┘
The account has been detached to remove the global lock but remains blocked. Talk page access has been granted as it has not been abused here by the user in question. If the user should request to be unblocked, Mike.lifeguard is not to deny it himself, as he was the blocking admin. – Adrignola talk 16:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ho, you jumped directly to issue 3. That would be the logical conclusion of step 2 if no objection was presented to the replication of past events, and a valid justification to the distinct freedoms that we would grant to the sock puppet account.

I remember a tag, probably a template, that was used as to inform other wikibookians that an account is a sock-puppet of another, I did a search and it seems we at the moment don't have one, was it deleted? (Wikipedia seems to have one)

What will become of that account? Normally they are deleted.

The next step should be left for the user to initiate. --Panic (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People don't normally create sockpuppets here, so there was never a need for one. The template is to ensure that they don't use it for vote stacking, but not to permit sock creation to bypass a block. – Adrignola talk 17:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People do create sock puppets, mostly I agree that they aren't necessary, but I can recognize useful instances to use one without an intention of bad behavior (this has been argued before). I expect those that exist are rarely identified as such. IIRC several admins had one, I think Whiteknight used one for tests for instance and the Wikibooks:Sockpuppets draft initiated by Whiteknight lists some uses. I did a search and only found one of mine, the others seem to have been deleted (User:FallenKnight this one can also be deleted). --Panic (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They can only be identified as such and allowed to edit or indefinitely blocked. There is no way to delete an account. – Adrignola talk 18:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are right. I thought that all the ones I had created had the information and I clearly remember one used by one of the admins to display a similar statement (probably the pages themselves have been deleted or altered). I can't find no more on the project with a notice. In any case if blocked the user page should be tagged as a sock puppet from the original account don't you think? (I think it is beneficial as to place them in a category and enable them to be easily searchable. This requirement would be a nice addition to the block draft. --Panic (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I see here is blatant wikilawyering and a rather unwelcome attempt to open the project up to further disruption from a notorious cross-wiki troll. One of our principles is that disruptive individuals (in particular wilfully disruptive individuals) can and should be asked to leave our community. Adrignola's right - we should define and defend our principles. That's all that's happening here. Thekohser has been so disruptive on so many wikis that he's being asked to leave all our projects. This is a good thing, and I see no reason whatsoever to exclude our wiki from that request, nor any reason for wasting our time talking or thinking about it. As I said before: He's banned. On all WMF wikis. For good reason. Now, let's all go do something productive instead of continuing this nonsense.  – mike@en.wb:~$  21:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"troll" Is there a special rule at Wikibooks that allows community members to be called "troll"? According to Wiki Science/Trolls, "Trolls are anonymous users of internet services". Gregory Kohs is not an anonymous user. "he's being asked to leave all our projects" Asked by who? "Thekohser has been so disruptive" In my experience, Gregory Kohs is a helpful Wikimedian and collaborative editor. "He's banned" I see no evidence that Gregory Kohs was banned. According to the Banned user page, "a ban is the result of a formal decision or substantial community consensus". I know of no formal decision or substantial community consensus for a ban against Gregory Kohs. --JWSurf (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see here is an attempt of User:Mike.lifeguard to again suppress the discussion. This clearly isn't wikilawyering (as User:Adrignola said, we don't have a policy on block) what we are after is a clear understanding on the actions that justifies the block. Why the first steward made the change? Why the wish expressed on the block comment was not activated, by making the local community aware that an external decision had blocked a member of their own?

I also remind you that this is not the first time you intervene to directly dismiss the issue, being the first the nasty re-block performed on the user account, that can only be read in one way and that fact alone, in my view, justified the user to attempt to circumvent the block.

There is also the fact is that your seem to be incorrect on at least one affirmation, as listed SUL status of Thekohser accounts, the user seems not to be banned on all WMF wikis.

If you wish to help please list any damage that the user has done that directly or indirectly affected the Wikibooks project, making vague claims and generalizations isn't helping making us understand the issue and why we should conform to a decision made elsewhere. I know you understand that historically we rarely accepted and validated such decisions. This project is managed by the local community and only a decision by the WMF would supersede us.

In any case I'm not participating in this discussion to get an unblock for the user, but to defend the right of the user to request one. I think that an unblock would only be validated by the user requesting it. I don't recognize the right for anyone to act for the user (or use the situation). --Panic (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can say what I was doing on Wikiversity to address this situation. There had been no problematic editing by Thekohser on Wikiversity prior to Jimbo personally blocking him in March. There was no local consensus for block, and no block by a local sysop. Jimbo's action was one of a set of actions taken in March on Wikiversity that ultimately led, with the addition of reaction to out-of-process deletions on Commons, to Jimbo, faced with a massive 4:1 !vote at meta, over 500 participants, seeking removal of Founder status from Jimbo, requesting that the intrusive tools that allowed him to block being removed from the Founder toolset. Jimbo's interference with local wikis, and by inference that of stewards, is quite unpopular and not supported when push comes to shove.

I had become a probationary custodian on Wikiversity in June, and Thekohser was requesting assistance in recovering his right to edit. I suggested that he register a new account and inform me so that I could immediately block it, leaving Talk page access, to allow him to negotiate with the community for unblock. He did so, registering Wikiversity:User talk:Ethical Accountability, and, while he did show some impatience, every edit he made was within civility standards and was not disruptive. He was, however, given onerous suggestions to follow by another sysop, which he declined. I suggested something different. I suggested that he make IP edits that were positive contributions and self-revert them with an edit summary of "per block of Thekohser." My opinion has been that self-reverted edits are not ban violation in any substantial sense, they leave behind no mess to clean up, and while this could be abused, abuse would defeat the purpose, which is really to keep the IP from being blocked, while allowing positive contributions. It worked. Thekohser made a series of positive contributions, each one self-reverted, showing full cooperation with the community and the real needs of those who feel they must enforce blocks. There was nothing they needed to do! Other sysops were aware of these edits, they stood out like a sore thumb, being explicitly identified, but the IP wasn't blocked (at that time). So, eventually, I unblocked the account, believing that by time he had earned a more open trial, particularly give that he'd done nothing (locally) wrong in the first place! He was immediately reblocked by a custodian who believed that the global lock should be lifted first, and he should use his main account. Basically, this was a local custodian enforcing the global lock without a local consensus to do so. That has not yet been addressed. But this procedure established that the user was capable of positive contributions and of being patient even under difficult circumstances, and with all the attention, it's extremely unlikely that he could get away with actual disruptive contributions. I'd have blocked him immediately, for one.

Hence my suggestion: by various devices and with close monitoring, Wikibooks can establish a demonstration of cooperation locally. (the self-revert procedure can actually be used with any blocked editor; some have claimed that this could be abused, but consider how much easier it is to monitor a user who self-reverts "per ban." And then anyone can review the edits and bring back in whatever they are willing to take responsibility for.) A recent history of positive contributions is a stronger basis for a true local consensus for unblock than merely a claim that the user was improperly blocked. That's why I took this approach rather than going for a discussion in a kind of vacuum, where some people may comment from rather knee-jerk positions (either way!). It is also possible to go directly to a discussion of unblock, though. If there is local consensus for unblock, then it is acceptable to allow Thekohser to edit locally, using a detached account or using a declared sock. And also to go to meta and ask for global unlock if it is preferred to let him edit with his original account.

Note that the global lock on Thekohser was established May 30 by Mike.lifeguard. I asked him why he did this, because the prior consensus was to unlock and allow local wikis to make the decision. He'd stated in the summary that it was based on "discussions." He confirmed that, on his meta Talk page, but did not specify with whom or how these discussions took place. My conclusion is that the lock has a weak basis and is not coming from WMF authority. If the WMF explicitly and openly gives the wikis direction on this, my view, we are obligated to follow it. But they will be reluctant to do this, my prediction, especially if it is over what is mostly piffle, trying to keep an open critic of WMF ethics out. It's understandable but not smart. And there are some very smart people on the Board and at meta. The local wikis should respect the declared needs of the WMF, and explicit guidance provided, but not secret agreements that might purport to be such. --Abd (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that no one seems to have a complaint against him. Abd even attested to the fact that he was not disruptive on wikiversity and that Jimbo, who set the block, was out of order in a number of things he did around the time. I have yet to find out what he did. --Arlen22 (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since he didn't violate local rules does what he did really have any bearing ? He is a registered user, he isn't a anonymous IP or an open proxy. This makes the use of a "global lock" abusive and disruptive to the local communities, it infringes on the right of self governance.

User:Abd, since the block (or the "global lock") wasn't based in a local consensus or a violation of local rules (that would require a local admin to make a personal judgment call), the block is ultimately an aggression against the user.

Unblock processes are always a mess, since they can be seen as an admitting to an error (the solution should be crafted to save face of both parties), it also requires maturity from those involved and an understanding of the greater good (what ultimately will most benefit the project, keeping the block or unlocking the user). By itself an unblock request is a statement by the user that he cares about the project and continues to have a will to participate in it. --Panic (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thekohser has now officially requested to be unblocked. – Adrignola talk 13:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pathoschild on the comment of his block action clearly grants the community the power to address the issue. As per comments of several Wikibookians there doesn't seem to be a local reason or precedent or anyone attempting to defend the validity of the block and since the beginning of this discussion no one has taken steps to inform us of the benefits for keeping the user blocked. I think that given the lack of any valid justification, since the time the block was imposed and the already expressed views we should keep the time for reaching a decision a bit shorter (3 days), as the user has been blocked since 5 May 2010. Does anyone still sees the block as justifiable ? (If so please do try to address the many questions that have already been put forward regarding the needed clarification of this subject) --Panic (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed Pathoschild and posted a note at meta (by his request here). --Panic (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if your comment "Pathoschuld [...] clearly grants the community the power to address the issue" is your response to what Pathoschild said at Meta after you posted there or not. Pathoschild replied to you on Meta, writing he/she has no objections to any actions taken by local consensus. --darklama 16:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did miss his reply and almost missed this one. I will reply below. --Panic (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can undo the local block if you want, but it won't do a lick of good. The global account is locked, and it will stayed that way. His local account is blocked, and it will stay that way too. Further sockpuppet accounts will be locked and blocked as well.

It is nice, I suppose, that the people who have a vested interest in there being an infinite supply of One Last Chances have come to a consensus that one of their brethren deserves yet another One Last Chance. That said, there actually is an end to the community's forgiveness. Thekohser is well beyond it, and he's been asked to leave. That won't be changing. So, please, let's find something useful to spend our energies on.  – mike@en.wb:~$  00:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no objections and Mike says that the local block can be undone, I have unblocked Thekohser locally. – Adrignola talk 01:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that you had already detached his global account. Obviously he can't be unblocked if that's the case, so I've undone that action.  – mike@en.wb:~$  01:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before I didn't particularly like the way you handled this case and this type of comment again seems to attempt to indicate that we are powerless to act therefore we shouldn't act at all. If this is your view on the subject you have clearly seem to have missed not only the motivation behind the action to fix the subject but what is best for this project. The situation is fixable here, outside of Wikibooks is not our direct concern.

The remark that "the people who have a vested interest in there being an infinite supply of One Last Chances have come to a consensus that one of their brethren deserves yet another One Last Chance." shows again that you failed to notice that the user didn't break any of our rules, that this isn't "you" against "us" and that the user is in fact, for can be read, being requested to stay and continue to work here.

There shouldn't be an end to community forgiveness, and if there is a broader discussion by that community would be necessary, if people seem redeemable they probably are. We shouldn't be in the job of expelling people from the project but in attracting them, and what best way is there than to show that all good willing volunteers are granted a measure of respect and protection for any of effort they put in the project that can include some level of criticism and support for minority views.

(edit conflicts I hope I've reworded it all correctly to fallow the changes)

Please, I kindly ask a delay in block and unblock actions of at least 20-30 minutes after a game changing post (someone else may have something to say or correct), in this case I didn't saw Mike's opinion, the erroneous one that motivated the action, as of having a relevance to validate the removal of Pathoschild block. I would like to preserve my record of blocks/unbocks :) --Panic (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is you who fails to realize that the user is banned. From all WMF wikis. End of story.  – mike@en.wb:~$  01:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize what you are doing, especially because of what is already stated about your special position on the subject and the opinions Wikibookians have expressed. I ask that no further action is taken on Mike's last change until the end of the day, when by all indications the user should have been unblocked. --Panic (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what indication there might be to support your assertion. I mean, I see the trolling and wikilawyering above. But that's never counted for much before. Is the Wikibooks community so weak that anyone can waltz in and tell us to unblock a notorious troll and we actually listen to them instead of blocking them too? We must be in worse shape than I imagined!  – mike@en.wb:~$  02:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think by your productive interventions you are correct on the determination of who has been trolling, but I do fear that the community is strong enough to be forced to take steps to correct the matter. One last question if you may, on the last block in what function did you act as a Wikibookian or as a steward ? --Panic (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A deeply concerned member of the Wikibooks community. I haven't needed to IAR yet.  – mike@en.wb:~$  02:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion, for me, is TL;DR. My only opinion on the issue is, we are not a bureaucracy. A globally blocked troll can turn good, and become a valuable member of any community. In real life, people sentenced to prison for life sometimes get released after years in jail, because it is evident that they have turned good. A person who is banned from some place is not necessarily evil, like Magwitch from Great Expectations. I'm sure everyone believes that if British authorities let Magwitch back into the coutry and Magwitch is not too weak, he could still continue to contribute to the country in a positive way. If after Kohs is unblocked, he contributes to the project in a positive way, then he should be unblocked. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 10:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To all nonwikipedia aware people like me, Mike's IAR = ignore all rules (meaning that in this context and for what I understand, that since the Wikibooks' community isn't in consensus about the block so as a steward shouldn't intervene) and Kayau TL;DR = too long; didn't read, I would like that people didn't assume all know and understand these types of references.

Sadly we are a bureaucracy (as there is and hierarchy, processes and rules that must be fallowed and this is verifiable by the time some decisions takes, that is why we have administrators, bureaucrats and stewards ad how processes work for instance Mike's actions are calculated steps inside that bureaucracy in any case Thekohser isn't a globally blocked troll, most of what you read seems to be propaganda and exaggerations (here on Wikibooks most posts on the subject have been balanced by corrections).

The reasons to question Thekohser situation aren't centered on the user, it is necessary because it establishes our self governance and independence. --Panic (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a reply to User:Darklama's post above. The order of actions and the way actions are readdressed has in the past been of importance, this is somewhat stated on the block policy draft and it was the issue behind how we were addressing the issue (we started from the end), recent actions derailed the process and we must now deal with them.
There is no doubt that the initial action was the User:Pathoschild conversion of the global lock into a local block, being a steward I suppose (and it has been discussed above) that the intention was to preserve our community's ability to address the issue and my reference to the delegation of that decision comes from the comment made on the local block (now reinforced by his reply), since locally there never was a problem with Thekohser, it is clear that the use of the global lock was indeed abusive and infringed on our self governance and independence. To deal with the issue from the beginning we would need in the first place to validate the block, but subsequent actions by Mike and Thekohser on top of the first decision made that difficult.
It is clear that the process is now derailed by the recent uncalled for and strictly personal interference by Mike as a Wikibookian admin, so we will have to address that now before resuming the previous process of normalization. --Panic (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the community consensus indicated that Thekohser should have been unblocked today, but that was prevented by an administrative action by Mike, we need to establish if the action was a valid. Since the original action, there continues not to be any local justification for the block of Thekohser and the community so far has expressed the intention of restoring the users freedom to participate on our project.
This discussion will now focus in determining consensus for the last block (since it clearly wasn't a consensual action). This discussions will run for 7 days, if consensus supporting the block isn't found the user will be unblocked as no initial consensus was ever reached for the block. --Panic (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the last action by Mike, because it was not based on any local rule or a direct result of the blocked user's actions, it directly derailed an already running process. It was an usurpation of the community's will and due process. --Panic (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Thekohser won't be unblocked. He's banned from all WMF wikis.  – mike@en.wb:~$  17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the needed declaration from the WMF that all WM projects are bound by that ban and we shall close the issue. (If it exists that information should have already been provided to all projects as to avoid unnecessary disturbances and attritions, this is not the first time it has been requested). I also note that we are receiving mixed messages from stewards Pathoschild clearly indicated that it is up to our local community to decide over the subject. --Panic (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few claims along the lines of "He's banned from all WMF wikis" have been made, such as the claim by Mike.lifeguard and the "Jyothis" log entry. However, Thekohser is still editing on several Wikimedia projects and no evidence for a ban has been provided. Since no evidence for a ban has been provided, I conclude that there is no ban, there is only bluster. It appears that a few stewards have falsely claimed that there is a ban and have violated the rules for Stewards by enforcing the ban over objections from several WMF wiki project communities. All the accounts of "Thekohser" should be unblocked/unlocked and he should be allowed to edit normally. I want to continue collaborative editing with Thekohser. --JWSurf (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banned or not, Kohs should be unblocked to give him a chance IMO. He has done nothing to harm the project. Why can't we give him a chance to contribute constructively to the project? Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 14:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks: "If no administrator is willing to lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community." – Adrignola talk 17:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you are willing to lift the block? It seems like it. There are no reasons provided for the block, and therefore it appears he is wrongfully blocked. "He's banned from all WMF wikis." does not appear to be a valid reason, correct me if I am wrong. I am really curious as to how this will end up as it will likely cause trouble in the future if not taken care of. I have read that stewards should refrain from unilateral actions like these. Arlen22 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] – Adrignola talk 21:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mike clearly indicated that he was not acting as a steward that item isn't a problem. But if Adrignola was to act before this process ended it wouldn't be validated as a community backed action. --Panic (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking of Jimbo. I understood he was no different than a steward, though I could be wrong. Arlen22 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also gather that that part is no longer the issue (here, anyway). Arlen22 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded it on the draft to "Until an administrator lifts the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community." since admins are a subgroup of the community and it is foreseeable that a situation presents itself that the community has to go to outside of the project to do a block/unblock, as no administrative action is an obligation (only the number of actions seems to be a requirement). --Panic (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. So, until such time as an admin decides that a genuine consensus exists and decides to act on it then nothing will happen and the block will remain in place. I don't have a crystal ball but I just can't see that happening any time soon. QU ^TalkQu 22:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case just the reverse (as per the indication on the start of the discussion). Since we don't have a block policy and even if we had the user in question hasn't locally violate any rule, any personal administrative action to block the user would require a validation by consensus or incur the risk of being just that, a personal use of the administrative flag (clearly in violation of our policy). That is what this discussion is determining if we should validate the latest action performed by Mike on the issue, since the user was to have been unblocked a few days ago, per previous consensus (with a clear but unreasonable objection by Mike, with the note that he has failed to provide any acceptable reason why the local community should be overruled from the outside, even if we clearly accepted that the WMF can do so, the WMF hasn't to our knowledge made that determination). Mike last block as he stated was an act solely on his discretion as a Wikibookian admin not as a steward. --Panic (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From our Wikibooks:Administrators#Expectations «"Infinite" blocks should not be employed unless specifically warranted. Legitimate users should not be blocked unless they are demonstrably disruptive to the community. If an admin blocks a legitimate user for no good reason that is a major disruption and a violation of this policy» --Panic (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe an administrator has violated policy and/or expectations, the only way to validate or refute that is through a reconfirmation of that administrator's status through which the community provides input. – Adrignola talk 23:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was and is one of the paths open for us, but even if I recognize a violation of policy, I doubt that removing flags from Mike will be beneficial for the project, and I foresee that going that far would cause even more disturbances than the action he performed. In any case it has indeed become clear that he has lost the confidence most of us have granted him and if he, does fail to rectify the situation or provide validity for the action I have no doubht that we will get to a discussion regarding the flags he holds.

We must also take in consideration that he has been under stress on this subject, and the situation of Thekohser outside of Wikibooks isn't clear, this process will provide Mike some time to attempt to get the needed statement from the WMF representatives. --Panic (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a staff member's validation on the issue providing an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation. – Adrignola talk 23:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We all would like to have it but as always I doubt that we will get one. In any case the requirement is now on Mike to provide a valid reason for us to subscribe to his unique view on the subject. He is a steward and he his now clearly aware of this community needs regarding this case. --Panic (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the ban of User:Thekohser since no evidence for a block has been brought forth. Nor does there appear to be any. Arlen22 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support the ban of User:Thekohser since, after correspondence with Mike, it seems there has not been foul play on the part of Jimbo, in this action (This validates Mike's actions), though I am waiting for evidence to be brought forth. A policy statement, an approved guideline, anything, and from anywhere that affects us. Arlen22 (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has not commented or acted here at Wikibooks. Additionally, it seems that you are seeking something to back up a position that you already hold, much like a police officer arresting someone and trying to find a crime to charge them with afterwards. Please elaborate. – Adrignola talk 03:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would hopefully like a summary of recent events since I have been a bit out of the loop. This is what little I have been told. As far as Thekohser goes I thought he was blocked at wikipedia for running a business in which companies would pay him to improve there wikipedia entries. Then some sort of mess ensued in which, at some point, so I have been told he bought accounts of adminstrators there and used the privlidges to his own effect.

If this is true, so far this has only been told to me in person independently by Mike and Ottava Rima (at WV), I would have a problem with him being unblocked. Buying privlidges at any WMF wikis is in my opinion not forgivable. Granted it wasn't an offense here, but I do think of the various WMF wiki's as a family, and believe actions act sister wiki's can be taken into account if they are serious enough. But this is just my opinion.

Now I am being told that Mike has revoked privlidges from Adrignola for unblocking Thekosher? This seems to be a serious error, and I hope it has been corrected already, and if it hasn't we should work to correct it immediately.

We should also try to get on wiki, in this thread exactly what Thekosher has or has not done, and have a fresh discussion about unblocking. Since Jimbo has not comment here I will point this thread out to him and see if he wishes to comment now. Thenub314 (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reply to your questions should be given on your talk as the issues you are inquiring are outside of the present discussion (and have been already covered above), but are indeed at the core of the justification given to the action being reviewed.

A minor correction to your assertions. The actions Thekohser may have been part of or not are outside of our community ability to analise and pass judgment on, the fact is that they didn't have any impact here and most will be uninterested and unaware of the goings on even if some in this active minority may have extended knowledge outside of our project that is no justification to extend our range of action. What is on the table is not Thekohser itself (as clearly no one can interpret this process as acting to defend or support any actions taken outside of the project) but the validity of an external interference on our local ability for self governance. --Panic (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thenub314 wrote: "I thought he was blocked at wikipedia for running a business". See this Signpost article for the story. Thenub314 wrote: "he bought accounts of adminstrators". Thenub314, please list the accounts that Thekosher bought. --JWSurf (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can honestly say that there I have seen no proof, which is why I asked that someone who is in the know fill us in. I can say that Thekosher himself admited using the admin account of Cool3, how he obtained access to this account I do not know. Thenub314 (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3]. He does acknowledge using the Cool3 account. What did he do with it? See Wikipedia Review discussion. In this, three or more ArbComm members and other long-time Wikipedians, including current administrators, retired administrators, the current Ombusdman for the WMF, and well-known banned editors cover the ground. No harmful editing or administrative action was alleged at all. And what does this have to do with anything here? Thekohser is well-known as a critic of Wikipedia, see m:Public speakers#United States (Gregory Kohs). (There have been long-term efforts to remove that listing, so far, they have failed.) Note that an argument on Wikipedia Review was that, if ArbComm had not "emergency desysopped" Cool3, but merely watched him and only acted if he did something harmful, they'd have gained months or longer of useful work at very low cost. Is there a lesson in that? Well, it's been said that he wants to do useful editing to thumb his nose at Jimbo. Note that if he does not do useful editing, and gets himself blocked locally for cause, it ruins the plan. It's up to you. I just thought you might like to know.

Oh, yes, he was blocked, last, by an Arbitrator, on Wikipedia, for making okay edits with sarcastic edit summaries like "I pledge allegiance to the ArbComm..." But I won't bother with diffs, because it is irrelevant here, I'd think. --Abd (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was initiated in 13 August to attempt to provide any validation for the personal and unilateral intervention of Mike as a Wikibooks administrator in the renewed block of user Thekohser. It is now 22 August and it is clear that the action does not gather the necessary community support, and it did invalidate the previous attempt to regulate the situation.
The only arguments for the continue block of the user are based on actions and processes outside of our direct responsibility and no justification or WMF declaration was put forward that requires the Wikibooks community to censure Thekohser that in our project has always complied with our rules.
This process for the unblock of Thekohser is similar to the action recently done at Wikiversity. As for the discussion above it is clear that Thekohser should be unblocked. To those that argued against the unblock of the user, and as stated on the discussion, it is evident that if the WMF comes to a different resolution on the issue we will conform to that ruling. --Panic (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support the ban of User:Thekohser. So far, mere pursuit of an unblock has been spectacularly disruptive, and I expect further pursuit of an unblock, let alone actual unblock, to create further disruption. Also, I note that there is a difference between being an independent project within the WMF family, and being independent of the WMF family; there is a point at which it is no longer sufficient for us to dismiss behavior elsewhere as "not on this project". At least partly separate from that is the matter of Mike.lifeguard's action. My experience of Mike.lifeguard does incline me to give him the benefit of the doubt, and in the discussion here I see plenty of doubt to give him the benefit of. --Pi zero (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Spectacularly disruptive has been the opposition to regularize the issue, it is specially incomprehensible since it goes way above our field of action and interferes directly with our normal processes. Even your untimely opposition seems out of place especially since it doesn't bring any new fact to what was clearly an abuse of power, even if that is not the matter we are focusing on. It was clearly demonstrated on the above discussion that this process isn't being transformed on a motion to censure Mike's action but to reestablish the process that he intentionally aborted. His intentions in the process are already understood and many of us do not agree with them, that makes it not consensual and not an act in accordance to the community wishes.

I do however agree with you, that there is "a difference between being an independent project within the WMF family, and being independent of the WMF family" but the fact here is just that, to be independent we must claim and exert independence and defend our capability to govern actions and processes that have implications to our project and have th obligation to protect out local community from external interference. In this specific case there was no clear indication from the WMF on how we must act, so it is up to us to act in accordance to the "established" normal practice and to what we locally see as just action. We aren't required to take sides especially in what to all seems to be an bad intentioned revenge move, that was blown completely out of proportions to make a point (and completely failed to do so), without regards to how it would affect the projects.

Just because we are giving Mike the benefit of the doubt and since it has been clearly established that the issue is not consensual outside of Wikibooks, harsher and more disruptive solutions were avoided and we refrained to read all action taken as malevolence, but that works both ways, especially since accusations made against Thekohser are outside of our ability to consider. In fact anyone that has something against the user is out of order in bringing them here unless the user breaks our local rules, the proper forum to request the WMF to take action is on the projects affected or at meta. This is not a process to unblock the user but a process to validate the block as requested and intended by the initial steward, and it clearly has demonstrated that a block has no consensus. Mike's interference did create the need to see the new block addressed also and now we have done that. --Panic (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... to be independent we must claim and exert independence and defend our capability to govern actions and processes that have implications to our project and have the obligation to protect our local community from external interference." Exactly. This reinforces my original point that we must define and stand up for our principles. The whole reason there was so much disruption over at Wikiversity was because the community could not formulate those principles, leaving it vulnerable to outside interference. It's only when a community appears unable to govern itself that the Foundation would have to get involved, and usually that's not in a good way, from removal of administrators to outright closure of a project. That governance includes the ability to define the rules of the community and determine what the consequences are for violations. There's been a lot of talk about how other projects would handle this. How should we handle this? It's not acceptable to rely on doubts, hearsay, or to tolerate off-wiki canvassing that takes transparency away from what should otherwise be a productive discussion. – Adrignola talk 03:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support the ban of User:Thekohser. In this comment I am attempting to focusing solely on the question if Thekosher should be banned. In general I agree with Pi Zero. Also, from what I have seen it is my opinion that Thekohser has been intentionally disruptive at our sister wiki's. Using admin accounts, running for steward, etc. Thenub314 (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then go to meta and express your opinion on those subjects that have nothing to do with Wikibooks, push for a WMF resolution on the issue. Locally the user hasn't done nothing wrong and there is clearly no motive or consensus for the block. --Panic (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)----[reply]

Well, this thread was (I thought) started to see if there was consensus for the block. So I am giving my opinion. I wasn't around to express my thoughts about the unblock, but judging from the comments above there doesn't (yet) seem to be a consensus either way. But don't tell me what to go do with myself because I disagree with you, I tried to make clear this was just my opinion. It is my opinion that actions at sister projects should be (or should have been) considered before detaching and unblocking an SUL locked user. It may not be popular opinion, and community consensus may go against me on this. I am ok with that. But we do get a lot of users from other wiki's, and I see the WMF as a close family that I would like to make closer. I don't know how the WMF feels, but the gave the SUL lock tool to the meta community, and expected them to use it. I don't want to lightly throw away meta's work, which by its nature is cross wiki, so cross wiki issues should be (on some level) considered. Thenub314 (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first post indicates the scope and duration of the discussion (that was called to term by my post above, 23:13, 21 August 2010) and it is not to establish what Thekohser did outside of Wikibooks.

If you look to the format that you expressed your "opinion", it was formated (or at least easily interpreted) as a support vote fallowed by a argument to validate that position. My reply is clear, the argument is void as it is outside of the Wikibooks community to analise actions that happened elsewhere and have no impact on the project and I pointed to where you should go to get to the resolution you seek.

In fact you don't disagree with me (or I with you), on the rational, just on the implementation and possibly on the conclusions. I agree with you that if the user is found guilty in the proper forum he should be banned. What we seem to disagree is that Wikibooks and the other projects (not involved on the issues) are the proper forums to implement ad-hoc blocks on user.

Regarding the SUL lock you seem not to have read what was said and verified even by my contact to the steward that changed it to a local block. The SUL process that initiated the debacle was without the clear backing of a fully participated decision process.

If you read the discussion you will find out that the SUL tool was also abused, since it clearly wasn't created for the function someone attempted to give it and not on terms it was done, hence the only justification for action of the first steward. But alas all this has already been stated and discussed above... I especially call your attention that an infinite block on the user as it stands is a direct violation of our policy. --Panic (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikimedia's a family, Wikibooks is treated like an ugly stepsister with regards to promotional and usability consideration. This seems to be boiling down to "some other projects don't like him so we shouldn't like him as well". Fact is, Thekohser participates at Wikisource, Commons, and Wikiversity freely. Lacking consensus either way should lead to a default of unblock. This is my general assessment and not simply with regards to this one situation. All the discussion on the independence of the projects and the right of stewards to make global locks for non-vandalism situations (i.e. "community bans") is hidden on the steward-l mailing list. Until the back-channel discussions stop I have nothing more to say. – Adrignola talk 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically my question is "Can we point to a policy or guideline and get this over with?". Arlen22 (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here's my answer meta:Global_blocking Arlen22 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the text isn't a policy or guideline and in fact states "Global blocks can be locally unblocked on specific wikis by any sysops on that wiki" (that was presumable the action of the initial steward was attempting to enable when he modified the situation). In any case if you read carefully the text you rapidly come to the conclusion that the tool is intended to prevent generic spamming and open proxys, not to impose direct and specific limitations on registered users. --Panic (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global blocking is specifically for IPs. The action in this case applied to the account in question is a global lock, not a global block. It is an important distinction. A global block can be overridden by local administrators; a global lock cannot. – Adrignola talk 03:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing since Steward requests/Global linked from Locked global account, defines the text indicated as "Global blocking" as a policy and as defining the use of a global lock, therefore a global block and a global lock is the same thing. Is there another source for the definition you gave above Adrignola, one that defines a "global lock" and that local admins can't perform the change? Or are you reading that limitation in the fact that local admins don't have the tools to do it themselves ? If so that is not a specific incapability but a technical limitation, a request to any steward would have it addressed from my reading of the only text we have. --Panic (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar on how things are in meta (every time I have gone out of Wikibooks for any process it all becomes extremely convoluted), but looking at the discussion page of the text that defines "Global blocks" it is initial stated by Mike as a draft (there is no reference to any approval process) and in the last two posts it is referenced as a policy. So lacking evidences to the contrary I will continue to assume it as a draft, that has so far defined the normal process. --Panic (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the differences, note on the Steward requests/Global page this: "Only IP addresses can be globally blocked, for user accounts, please post under Requests for global (un)lock and (un)hiding section." If they were the same thing, they wouldn't use two sections for requests or make that distinction. It is a technical limitation that prevents local admins from performing the change. – Adrignola talk 03:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can global sysops do it ? (there is some mention that they can on the talk page but not on the policy). I do think since there is no other mention of the distinction, that the separation indicated in the text has been a change to reflect a non-regulated practice. If you take a look into the earliest versions it even permits and promotes the participation of any Wikimedia editor in the process. --Panic (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global sysops have no more privileges than local sysops. Just like global rollback, it puts them into the rollback/sysop group of every wiki in the participating list. In fact, if Wikibooks:Global rights policy becomes policy, they will be more limited, in that a local policy can restrict what actions they can take. – Adrignola talk 13:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does an admin have to unblock someone if the community demands it? Arlen22 (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no administrator (or Wikibookian) is required to act. We are all volunteers and all actions are ruled by that fact. Nevertheless an administrator, like any other Wikibookian, is bound by what the community decides (by the set process) and any actions not stipulated by local rules will require community validation (if objected). This is same logic that the BeBold policy applies, in personal administrative judgments, admins are humans an will make mistakes, after an opposition to the change is presented the normal decision process takes over to validate not if the action is to be undone but if the action was correct in the first place, if the admin does not recognize the arguments the community can be brought to decide on the subject. This is basically the way we deal with anything (reverse wars or edit disputes, etc). --Panic (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the Founders crafted the US Constitution — a covenant between the government and the citizenry — they expressly excluded Bill of Attainder because that tool of government was at odds with the type of government they envisioned for the new Constitutional Republic.

The main problem with Bill of Attainder that worried the Founders was the long-standing historical relationship between Bill of Attainder and such corrosive and troubling political phenomena as discrimination, persecution, alienation, and scapegoating of disfavored parties whilst avoiding of the real issues of the day.

The name "Bill of Attainder" comes from the word "taintedness" which corresponds to giving someone a "black mark" or stigma. Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote a novel about that entitled The Scarlet Letter.

The main problem with Bill of Attainder is that it deprives someone of their unalienable human and civil rights. Similarly, here in Wikibooks, banning or blocking a scholar without just cause interferes with their unalienable human and civil rights to engage with their peers in the discovery learning process, which we all hold as the highest value of an authentic learning community.

Moreover, the WMF Mission Statement states:

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

Blocking and banning acts to forcibly disempower and disengage scholars from around the world from the mission of constructing, developing, and disseminating the very educational content that WMF is pledged to embrace.

For these reasons, the troubling practice which Jimbo Wales and Mike.lifeguard have introjected into Wikibooks is one that Wikibookians would be wise to eschew, deprecate, and exclude from the tools of governance for the same reasons the Founders wisely ruled it out when they crafted the US Constitution: it is a corrosive and corrupting tool of government that predictably dishonors and sinks any regime foolish enough to employ it so cavalierly as we are now witnessing.

—Moulton (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cogent comment. Moulton does overstate certain things; for example, Jimbo did not "introject" the "troubling practice" into Wikibooks. It was only Mike.lifeguard, acting practically unilaterally, which, I presume, this community will review. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"interferes with their unalienable human and civil rights to engage with their peers in the discovery learning process", it may be an unalienable human right and civil right in general, but nobody has those rights here - this is a private organisation, not a quasi nation-state with an embryonic constitution. Or are you claiming these rights only came into existence in the last 10 years? Wikilawyering at its worst IMO. QU ^TalkQu 09:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see Moulton posts as relevant and productive on the context of our discussions and that they cover subjects that aren't relevant to this project. But I have to make some remarks about your post.

In most societies those rights you refer, are recognized and have some level of protection, even if WMF is a private organization (disregarding even its special status as a nonprofit organization, that has special requirements and the mission statement that is at the core for all volunteers participation) it has to nonetheless provide some measure of safeguard to those rights, imagine that the foundation by inaction would permit the exclusion of everyone who has green eyes. In the particular cases Moulton seems to be concerned with discriminations and suppression of rights that are not as evident, but I see anyone taking the time to raise these issues, making questions and calling attention to what they see as problems as beneficial, even if I agree that this is not the right way and the best time for doing that.

In this regard I have also noted some edit reversal that I'm not happy about, since the comments fail to justify the reason they have been performed, in special due to the demonstrated impartiality on the subject of the one doing the reversal, but I don't know the background of the Moulton or his activities outside of Wikibooks (and I particularly don't care, I do infer that there is something there and that it is linked to the reason the user isn't using a register account) but if we examine the content they are as relevant and on topic as for instance the considerations Arlen22 is making of outside events, that I don't regard as having a special relevance to our community or to the ongoing discussions. Making me unhappy on the inconsistency regarding the treatment of Moulton.

As someone that has been strictly confined to working on Wikibooks (and in very few other wikis, none of them as structured as this one) an not being a lawyer, I have come to be annoyed with the inconsistent use of the word "Wikilawyering". Laws are a necessary evil in any social structure and with increased complexity on that structure and the laws that governs it, lawyers perform the needed function of being the ones that have not only the knowledge of the laws but being those regarded as capable of arguing about situations involving the interactions of members of the society and the existing laws (in our setup we don't have internal lawyers and each user should be able, in an equal ground, to perform the function without being attributed any special label, if working in good faith, even if defending minority views). As a non US citizen I think I understand the general distaste commonly observed in the US regarding lawyers, but my understanding is that those "feeling" aren't valid at least on Wikibooks (they may be valid in meta to some degree) as there is no profit or special power/political position to fight for here. In fact I would rather prefer to label the user as a troll and we can ask him to desist as it can be argued that Moulton or even Arlen22 action of bringing attention to outside events that are ultimately out of topic and irrelevant as not being related to Wikibooks would constitute trolling, especially on the present situation. I say this with all regard to Arlen22, but as a way to be consistent and impartial on these observations. Is there any way to validate the word "Wikilawyering" besides being used to, without real counter arguments, attack a viewpoint? On Wikibooks, I don't think so... --Panic (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Arlen22 and make things clear, I must state that my objection to his actions of, to my understanding, attempting to gather more information on what was happening outside of Wikibooks (much in the lines of Thenub314 post above, that I replied asking to be conducted in a "private" talkpage) are on the use of this forum, that is, at the same time, being used to evaluate how the community should act in internal matters regarding two users that seemingly have been involved on those same outside events. Arlen22 participation here is distinct from Moulton's and Mike's on motivation even if the value is the same (that was the point I was making above in regards to attributing labels to participations). --Panic (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the global lock request, the edited line is what did it. There was apparently proper procedure. -Arlen22 (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's questionable. The things alleged there were not "cross-wiki" abuse. Further, what actually happened has been presented in a highly distorted way, yanked from context. The BLP issue was "response testing," done under safe conditions. Kohser was given a list of a small number of low-watched WP BLPs, by MZMcBride, an administrator and toolserver user, and the list was kept otherwise confidential for a short time. Thekohser then -- a banned user! -- made harmless hoax edits to those articles, with varying degrees of difficulty involved in uncovering the hoax. This was only on Wikipedia. In short order, the pages were publicly revealed and what had happened with the hoaxes. Some were detected and some were not. Compared to the flood of absolute junk that is pouring into Wikipedia all the time (I've done RCP!), this was nothing, and this was part of an effort to clean up WP's treatment of BLPs, i.e., to improve the project, and it was not pure vandalism. Thekohser is a critic who sometimes cooperates with established users, including administrators, to improve the project, even though banned. The admin, MZMcBride is still an admin on meta. This was discussed[4] on MZMcBride Talk on WP. MZMcBride was desysopped on Wikipedia as a result of this incident. This is a Wikipedia issue, not a "cross-wiki" issue. MZMcBride appears to also still have privileged access to the toolserver, which is what he used to obtain the low-watch data. There are those who think MZMcBride should have gotten a medal. But lots of people also think it was foolish. --Abd (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this revision -Arlen22 (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, Jimmy no longer has the ability to do what he did. Find "Lock or hide global account (centralauth-lock)" on the page. --Arlen22 (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above two items are misleading in context. Jimmy didn't set the global lock. He did block Thekohser on Wikiversity, that's all. (Jimbo also gave up the right to block.) If you look at the global account manager for Thekohser, the source of the "global ban" was a comment made in a heated discussion on Wikiversity. This was hardly an official action, but some people take whatever Jimbo has said, anywhere, as writ. There is no "global ban," in fact. Thekohser is editing currently on a number of WMF wikis, while stewards certainly have the ability to stop that, and they are certainly aware of it. This is clearly a local decision. It's up to you to make it, not stewards or even Jimbo. The Foundation can intervene if it decides to. It has not. --Abd (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am done worrying about this, I have more important things to do. -Arlen22 (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thekohser has been unblocked at Wikiversity after delinking from the global account by our old friend SB Johnny. I'd advise anyone following this discussion to take a look at the discussion there that led to the unblock. The conclusion was that consensus was required for a block, not an unblock, but that there was consensus to unblock anyways. – Adrignola talk 00:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are larger issues at stake here, beyond Thekohser. Wikibooks:Blocking policy is draft, Wikibooks:Global rights policy is draft, there is a lack of dispute resolution when wheel-warring is involved at the highest levels of administration, there is no call for removal or review of those who don't respect community consensus, and there is a lack of participation by key members of the community in issues important to the project. If there's something I'm missing here, by all means, point it out. – Adrignola talk 12:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WB:BLOCK for Wikibooks' only blocking policy. See Wikibooks:Blocking guideline which was rejected. The blocking and global rights drafts are relatively new and will likely need a bit of work before people feel they are ready to be proposed to the community. --darklama 12:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to put in a word for the Wikibooks members who are completely fed up with all this bickering. I don't know who is right or wrong, and it's all too boring and depressing to get involved with. I'm quite willing to believe that everyone involved has acted with the best intentions, even if certain rules or procedures were not followed absolutely according to the book. With the entrenched positions which seem to have been taken on either side, there does not seem to be any end in sight to the acrimonious debates. Why not agree to stop debating and decide the block / unblock issue on a simple majority vote? Or flip a coin - I don't care - just anything, anything to make it stop. I'm sure the rest of us here would all be sooooo grateful! Recent Runes (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, you haven't participated in this discussion at all. If you're not going to get involved, don't call for an end to an issue others feel strongly about. We don't do a "vote" for anything other than a CU nomination and to do so for a block trivializes this situation. I will note that Thekohser is now detached and unblocked on Wikinews as well. – Adrignola talk 19:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent is the second person to say something about it. This is a bad situation, and one that I backed off of partly because of mike's warnings. Let's just take a majority vote and be done with it. -Arlen22 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support Arlen22! As I experience this "discussion", it is like living in a shared house with the people on the top floor rowing all the time. As for the idea of having a vote, at least that would have the advantage of making a decision without one side having to admit they were wrong. Recent Runes (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

!vote at the end of this subsection, click the edit link just below, to the right -->

Please begin voting here. I will agree to continued blocking, not to be reviewed again for 12 months, if the Wikibooks community (I define community as Wikibooks editors with at least 10 edits between June 1, 2010 and August 30, 2010) determines by at least a 40% minority that I should remain blocked. In other words, if 60% or more of the so-defined Wikibooks community would like to see me unblocked to complete at least the section about Strategic Bombing in Europe, then I should be unblocked. If not, I will go away for 12 months, and we'll also see how that Strategic Bombing section develops. I would insist that at least 10 community members cast a vote, for the polling to be statistically reliable. The voting should remain open until the end of September 12, UTC time. -- Thekohser (using 68.87.42.110 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Oppose local block. I've tried to keep an open mind but unsubstantiated allegations by the few that oppose an unblock have not convinced me. Blocks are preventative and not punitive and I fail to see what immediate and grievous harm would come as a result of allowing contributions by this user. There is not a global ban as four of our sister projects have explicitly decided to override the global lock that was implemented counter to the previous removal of a global lock that allowed local communities to decide. While a straw poll is not the most favorable way to decide something like this, I instead view this section as a collection of additional positions and rationale that will be considered in addition to and not in place of comments in sections above, regardless of any attempts to impose conditions by anonymous editors. – Adrignola talk 11:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is silly. Unblock the guy, and treat him like anyone else if he's causing trouble in Wikibooksland. Mike is clearly not speaking on behalf of a consensus of stewards, and Mr. Wales's personal issues with Mr. Kohs has nothing to do with Wikibooks: the only mission here should be writing books, and anyone who wants to chip in should be welcome... Mr. Wales, AFAIK, hasn't done much in the way of contributing here, so his "vote" should be seen in that light. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with SB, overturn local block and some day the global lock. I abstain, like Jomegat. This is some stupid BS from Wikiversity, and I don't want it. amended at 13:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC) —I-20the highway 21:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't agree in principle that any vote based on the criteria defined above by the IP editor can "bind" the community in any way at all... Policy isn't made up on the fly like this and the definition of who can vote, how long the vote stays open and the success criteria are not for one person to mandate like this. So I'm not participating in the "vote". QU ^TalkQu 22:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain - I have enough drama in my life already without adding wikidrama. I will not oppose an action either way. "And that's all I have to say about that." --Jomegat (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain - I'm opposed to any voting. I have already made my position known and have justified it, I have yet to see a justification by those blocking the process. --Panic (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blocking any user anywhere not based on local violation of policy. I'm not currently a Wikibooks user, except for commenting on this case (because I have extensive knowledge about it), and a few odd edits, but I hope to be. Good luck, all. (As to Mr. Kohs setting conditions, he is offering to respond in a certain way on conditions that he sets. That's his right. It isn't binding on anyone except maybe him.) --Abd (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically, you shouldn't be voting since you only have 5 edits in the article namespace. You are not part of this community (though you are welcome to become part of it), and have represented Wikiversity to us (not bad, just another position of you not being part of this community, though the first substantiates this position). -Arlen22 (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's at 18 edits now, but, sure, several were self-reverted when I reconsidered. I do like to be careful. Who knows what it will be by the time this is closed? Do you think I should remove the comment above and replace it with one below? --Abd (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Technically we don't vote (all the previous decision processes that required voting had specific rules and they are no more, at best there are some instances that require a expression of support, like the CU flag process). Even if in practice, when consensus process is abused, we quickly fall into voting when the opposition can't be compromised with and unreasonably blocks the process and no one is willing to call them out. Secondly we don't have static rules on on how a voting process is run nor an established practice, in fact, this participation issue, is one of the problems with voting, especially in our wiki environment. In any community decision, only the active minority participates, it should be expected that the participating minority acts and acknowledges the responsibility of representing the inactive, silent and nonparticipating majority of the community, for that to work every participation should be welcomed, what counts here is opinions and the capacity to argue a point in good faith, even unregistered users should be heard.

To me Thekohser is "technically" unblocked. People unwilling to realize that simple fact have demonstratively shown no respect for the other participants of the project and are not working toward the good of our project, the Wikibooks project, we aren't meta and our scope is well defined. So in practice Thekohser is blocked because we don't have a strong enough administration and people have broken our policies and disregarded common practice. --Panic (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good lord, mild sanity seems to be prevailing! - and on a wiki too :-) - I'd be glad for GK to be unblocked, although I'm pretty new here, so weigh that as you will.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the first three of four sentences of QU's comment; the only point in that comment where we differ is that I do not share QU's position on the block (as stated elsewhere in this discussion; were I to withdraw my support for the block, I would say so). --Pi zero (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In case you're wondering, I'm not affected by the Wikibreak enforcer because Wikibooks switched to vector skin. :)I'm also opposed to the block, and I think Kohs should be unblocked for a simple reason. This discussion has clearly reached no consensus at all. This is because if a block/ban discussion reaches no consensus then in most cases no block is performed. Even if the user is currently blocked, the default should be no block. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 10:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Bill of Attainder is an unwise policy and practice for a 21st Century Learning Organization — I recommend abandoning this anachronistic, long-discredited, and corrosive tool of governance. The Founders eschewed it because they understood that it corrupts and sinks any regime foolish enough to adopt and employ it. —Moulton (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This comment opposing the use of blocking as practiced by some was added by an IP believed to be that of Moulton, the signature is credible. This user, a well-known critic of WMF ethical practices, is under a global lock (like Thekohser), but has no account here, so he is not blocked here, and there appears to be no specific policy prohibiting his participation. I am pulling this vote in to specially mark it. --Abd (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) User reverted indention, not worth revert warring over. --Abd (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Can we really count Moulton as a member of the Wikibooks community though, if he doesn't have an account here? Recent Runes (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter anyway - this isn't a "vote" that can be "tampered with" because there is no policy under which to conduct a vote... The comment can stay here, it makes no difference IMO. QU ^TalkQu 20:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There may not be a policy on how communities make collective decisions, but this is a poll to take a measure of the sentiment of the contributors here. With respect to the WMF Policy on Contributions, it reads as follows:

The public and collaborative nature of the projects

All Projects of the Wikimedia Foundation are collaboratively developed by its users using the MediaWiki software. Anyone with Internet access (and not otherwise restricted from doing so) may edit the publicly editable pages of these sites with or without logging in as a registered user. By doing this, editors create a published document, and a public record of every word added, subtracted, or changed. This is a public act, and editors are identified publicly as the author of such changes. All contributions made to a Project, and all publicly available information about those contributions, are irrevocably licensed and may be freely copied, quoted, reused and adapted by third parties with few restrictions.

—Moulton (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a chat on a WB project page. Nothing more. Your comments on licensing, etc., have no bearing on anything being discussed here and I really can't see why you thought it valuable to paste in, not that I'm interested - I've made my position clear. This is not a vote, I am not expressing a view either way, if an admin wants to unblock then I won't complain but nor will I complain if the account is left blocked. QU ^TalkQu 21:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there was a community discussion that has gathered consensus against voting. My understanding of this particular situation is that Thekohser is the only one affected by the result of this vote and he is running it here to get a greater level of participation, so the community may participate but the rules and conclusions are for Thekohser benefit only, of course no one is prevented from extrapolate their own conclusions, in fact that is why I have abstained myself as not to collaborate in creating factions and define sides. Those interested know perfectly well what is the situation and the actors. --Panic (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm collapsing this because it distracts and frustrates attempts to get a clean and visible response from the community. Side discussions can reduce reader understanding of a process. Vote counts can be interesting but are always subject to interpretation. I do not know if Moulton has been a contributor to Wikiversity, but he has certainly tried to contribute to this discussion many times, he's normally been reverted quickly. The character of this !vote will be considered if there is a community decision coming out of this process. It is not necessary to remove it. However, Moulton revert warred over this !vote, i.e., he removed my indention of it, to set it off, which is common behavior for him, it's a contributing factor to the continuation of his ban, that he revert wars by IP (and then he will complain about being blocked). I've been trying to encourage him not to do that. Someday, maybe, he'll get it. Meanwhile, I'm suggesting this collapse to keep us from getting derailed. --Abd (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC) the collapse was reverted, tant pis. If anyone thinks that these wandering discussions distract us from our purpose here, making our consensus more obscure, they can, of course, restore the collapse, see the revert link for formatting.[reply]

• Unblock I can understand why people have doubts about Thekohser, but I think fundamentally it is the user's contributions here that matter, not what he might have said or done elsewhere. So long as he's making positive contributions to Wikibooks, then fine. Recent Runes (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pi zero and QU sums up my feelings quite well. I still oppose the unblock, and don't think this should come down to a simple vote in this way. Thenub314 (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block since he allegedly bought an admin account on Wikipedia (can't figure out how he managed that, but anyway), and since he was planning to vandalize on Wikipedia, just to experiment with how good Wikipedia worked (if he does it on one, I see no reason he won't do it on another). -Arlen22 (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• unblock so as to support a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty. If there must be no elites then important decisions like blocks and bans must be made by community discussion. --JWSurf (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ' Support unblock, suggest permaban of Mike.lifeguard for massive disruption. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of 22:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Explicitly favor unblock (oppose block)

1. Adrignola
2. SB_Johnny
3. Abd
4. Privatemusings
5. Kayau
6. Recent Runes
7. JWSurf
8. Guido den Broeder

Abstain from voting and doesn't recognize Thekohser block.

1. Panic (I have already made my position known [Thekohser is not blocked by the community] and have justified it)

Abstain, do not oppose unblock or block.

1. QU (block or unblock, I don't care)
2. Jomegat
3. —I-20the highway 13:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblocking (favor block)

1. Pi zero
2. Thenub314 (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. -Arlen22 (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (The compilation above may be updated by anyone, sign below if updating, please)
• (Comments from IP editors are not listed here if they have no known account here.)

for reference, based on prior discussions. No implication is made that this is their conclusion or present position; this analysis is done to anticipate how much local opposition to unblocking is reasonably likely to appear as this remains open. A closer may, of course, wish to consider many factors other than !vote counts; generally decisions are best made through preponderance of evidence and arguments. With each of them, diffs to participation here are given, so that their arguments may be carefully considered, this is especially important with minority positions. A little analysis is given.

• Mike.lifeguard [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
• Arlen22 and Thenub314 were originally listed here, but they have now !voted, so I have refactored this, what was here for them is now below.

Contrary to the comment of Kayau, there is a visible consensus so far. There was originally only one expressed opposition to unblocking, Mike.lifeguard's, which was never justified based on local behavior but only on claims that the user was globally banned, with claims that even discussing this was disruptive (the word "trolling" was used), and suggestions that anyone supporting unblock should be, themselves, blocked. He then wheel-warred to re-establish the absolute block he had earlier set himself, and appears to have canvassed off-wiki to convince others, based on non-public arguments. I have become quite concerned about Mike.lifeguard's behavior, here and at meta, this is why I've paid so much attention to this process. I'm also interested in WikiBooks, qua WikiBooks, but have so far been only a minor contributor. I believe that Thekohser would do much more work here than I, in the short term. Having experienced harassment on another wiki, however, I will note that I tend to withdraw my participation from wikis where users are blocked for political considerations rather than for actual, local, disruption, if I don't think I can fix it. They are not safe places to work. I'm gratified to see such support here for the basic principles of wikis. --Abd (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)refactored Abd (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thekohser's elaborate promise appears to have been intended as a positive gesture, not as an attempt to control this community and its process, he was offering to drop all effort to be unblocked under certain conditions. However, I believe that the community should ignore that offer (except possibly as indicating some kind of good faith effort to stop disruptive arguments), and that he should be blocked or unblocked based on the merits. If he doesn't want to be unblocked, he can simply not edit! Wikipedia does not block, normally, on request, and there are very good reasons for this. --Abd (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now voted. -Arlen22 (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am refactoring the above, to below, all but one of those listed have now !voted.

• Arlen22 [12][13][14][15][16] / [17][18][19][20][21] ... [22][23][24]

• The "/" marks a drastic shift in Arlen22's position, clearly based on off-wiki communication with Mike.lifeguard, and the last diff shows that this included unspecified "warnings." Arlen22 appears willing to accept a majority result.

The warnings were that this could cause huge problems if we let it divide us and start fighting over things. It was more of an as-is than a block position. -Arlen22 (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Arlen, my compilation continues below. --Abd (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thenub314[25][26][27][28] ... !voted[29]
• Pi zero [30] ... !voted

Please do not refactor my analysis except to correct clear errors; if you disagree, please add your own analytical comment below. I accepted the comment of Arlen22 because it was a brief clarification, but if an analysis like this becomes an extensive back-and-forth, it defeats the purpose. The present purpose of this section is to make sure that all arguments favoring the block are carefully considered, that is especially important for any minority position, if the goal is, ultimately, consensus. If the balance shifts toward blocking, I would want to add a similar compilation of arguments for unblock. --Abd (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC). Added add'l Thenub314 diff. --Abd (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QU had objected to the way his comment was presented, originally, by me. It had been presented with a direct quote; he replaced that with a summary. But he did not change his actual !vote, so I restored the direct quote, leaving his new summary in place. He then objected to this as well, and removed his original comment. I have accordingly reclassified his !vote to a simple abstention, since, as modified, there is no reason to continue to consider it a specific permission to unblock, at least not as clearly. In the future, if a user is going to change a comment that has already received some response, it is traditional to strike it rather than to delete it, leaving the record more clear. Oddly, QU did not object to the classification itself, which was not as a simple abstention. No words had been put into his mouth, and the only "conclusion" imposed was the classification itself, which he apparently didn't mind. Quite unusual. --Abd (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You took a quote from my original non-vote and presented it in a way (I am not claiming malice on your part) that I felt made it seem to support a particular position (by just stating go ahead and unblock it looks like I am supporting the unblock despite the non-vote being counted in the abstain section). Someone not reading the whole of my comments may be mislead. It's the same thing people do when a critic says "This movie had me glued to the seat it was so dull" and selective quote "This movie had me glued to the seat" making it look like positive support. My position is I don't care if the account is unblocked or if it remains blocked and that's how I want my comments summarised if they are going to be summarised. To avoid future confusion over my position I have removed the original line from my non-vote so nobody is confused. QU ^TalkQu 11:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with QU that he should be allowed to present his position in his own way, and not have quotations put in by anybody else. Recent Runes (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He may present his own comments, but others may analyze them, and if the analysis is unfair, he may object. He really should not refactor the analysis of others. However, I accommodated his refactoring. His original comment was presented as an abstention that nevertheless explicitly permitted unblock, he had used the imperative, "Go ahead and unblock." For some reason, he removed the exact quotation instead of merely adding his clarification emphasizing abstention. So I restored it, and he reverted, also removing another (unrelated) signature. That was improper. The section was authored by me as my analysis, and I did permit others to update it, which would include minor corrections, but not revert warring with me! However, he then altered his original comment, to delete the phrase he didn't want quoted. So I did not restore it to the analysis. But I did move his comment to a different section, since there was now no basis for the original classification. I find it odd that he objected to my quotation of the basis for classification (as a kind of support for unblock), but not to the classification itself. Wikibooks, you have attracted some odd characters (including me, I'm sure).

Recent Runes, I'm free to present my analysis of this process, and that others are permitted to edit part of it at all is by my sufferance. This is what collaboration looks like: respect for individual rights, but also flexibility and tolerance. As a newcomer here, I'm seeing a certain insularity, and I'm warning against that. It will keep Wikibooks from adapting to new conditions, locking in process that is familiar but dysfunctional.

I'm glad that QU came to recognize that the confusion came from his original comment. Had he focused on correcting that in the first place, this all would have been simpler. QU has come to my Talk page with some interesting comments, and I will respond there. However, I have over twenty years of experience with on-line process, starting with the w:W.E.L.L. in Sausalito, California, in the 1980s. There are reasons for what I do. If I explained it all, my already lengthy comments would become tomes.

I want to assure Wikibookians that my goal here is that true community consensus become clear, or, if not clear, then that the basis of the disagreement become clear (so that resolution can be explored). I obviously cannot impose this, and if I create a false impression by my analysis, I'd simply be shooting myself in the foot. I am far more interested in clear and efficient wiki process, that maximizes deliberated consensus, than I am in whether or not Thekohser is unblocked. He is, too, I suspect. --Abd (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Improper"... As is a personal attack accusing me of being "odd". QU ^TalkQu 17:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not QU is "odd," I find this objection odd. Nevertheless, I've refactored. --Odd (aka Abd) (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section heading is just Summary of Positions, so I didn't realise you thought it belonged just to you. If everybody writes their own summary here, that would be rather inefficient. Recent Runes (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. RR, I agree. However, if I do a decent job, in the end, as helped by others, other summaries won't be necessary. Someone who thinks that it's necessary can certainly add another! It did "belong" just to me, in the sense that I was responsible for what I put there, and, indeed, for what I allow to remain there, but I also invited others to help (and they have). Yes, the section header is "Summary of positions," but every summary has an author, or set of authors. I'd be happy to change that section header to "Summary of positions by Abd," or anyone could change that, if you think it an improvement. I remain open to help and correction. But that section is my comment, merely with an invitation to correction, and QU was welcome to make his position more clear. I didn't like him continuing to remove an exact quote, however, given especially that it had already been balanced by a correction that I accepted. Classic NPOV practice: don't remove reliably sourced information, but balance it with other reliably sourced information. But then he changed the source, his original comment. Of course I then recategorized! I would not leave, in a summary, a retracted comment!

That section is signed, in the collapse at the bottom, and my signature there indicates my acceptance of all preceding edits to the section, my taking responsibility for all that as being adequately fair. Most of those editing the section have signed, but it isn't that important; whoever has signed last can be considered reasonably responsible for it up to that point. I'd make an exception for someone who is simply editing their own summary, they will not necessarily have reviewed it overall. I have no desire to categorize anyone contrary to their own opinion of their own comment. But if they present a "summary" that is obviously different from what they actually said, I might add something to it referring to the original comment. They can change their original comment, though it's better if they use strike-out than simply delete, in a situation like this. --Abd (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

above is an examination of arguments given to maintain the block of Thekohser. In my view, because they are about activity elsewhere, they are moot, hence I'm placing them in collapse. But some seem to think that behavior elsewhere is a predictor of behavior here, which is extraordinarily unlikely in this case. Please respond to this within the collapse, if you wish. Or below, if you think it that important. --Abd (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the above use of the Cool3 account, it is the request for adminship of Cool three should be considered. In it the user clearly states that Thekohser was not given permission to use the account. On Thekohser's talk page he simply tried to complicate the matter further by pointing out that we cannot really determine if he and Cool3 were not in fact the same person all along, and is generally unwilling to clarify further (apparently for fear of legal attack). If Thekohser and Cool3 are in fact different people I find the situation pretty damning. Since I am always asked to point to edits I find problematic, I will mention that I find casting !votes under the guise of a more trusted member of the community as something I do not condone. Further, in the event that Cool3, Thekohser and Cool three are all the same person then I find the story being sold at the RfA a serious problem. Finally in the event that Cool3, Thekohser are the same but Cool three is some other party, I still find it rather unsettling that after Thekohser was blocked he then continued editing from another account. (In case there is a feeling I missed a few possibilities, I am accepting of Thekohser's statement in his request to become a steward that he did in fact use the account). Anyway you cut it, the situation does not seem good to me, which is why I choose to take the position I do. How he came about access to the account, while possibilities are troubling, is not the only thing to consider with this sequence of events. I of course do not share Abd's opinion that actions at our sister projects are moot. Thenub314 (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are those who believe that editors are morally obligated to abstain from editing if blocked. However, the social contract between the editor and the owner of the project and the community has been cancelled by the community (or its agent) through the block. Technically, it's become void for lack of consideration. Positions like that of Thenub314 have overlooked the original Ignore all rules principle, which is also general common law (it's called "public policy"), and which actually requires breaking rules if it will improve the project. Further, WikiMedia projects in general have taken on a global scope, "human knowledge," and there are larger issues than those which can be tightly controlled by a narrow community of insiders. Judging the actions of someone like Thekohser simply from within an insular and local point of view is likely to lead to narrow and foolish conclusions. The community and the WMF have the right to block users, that is not contested by me. However, when this results in a warping of the mission of the wikis, of the loss of neutrality that is fundamental WMF policy, a conflict is set up. Some people, addressing this, will work within the system. I have, for example, never evaded a block, nor, in fact, a ban, though my "MYOB ban" on Wikipedia was so vague that it was wikilawyered six ways till Sunday, which is why I suspended working there. But if I were actually site-banned, I'd reconsider. There are those larger issues for me to consider. Others will work outside the system, and that would include some of Thekohser's work. All I've seen, however, from him, has clearly been intended to improve the projects, setting aside a certain penchant for self-expression through sarcastic comment. Are people here aware of what his offense was that got him finally banned from Wikipedia? I find it shockingly parochial. However, it is apparent that he has no intention of doing those irregular actions here, which is why all this is really irrelevant, and if this analysis is wrong, surely it will become apparent and unblock is easily reversible upon the appearance cause.

Activity elsewhere is not entirely moot, but substantially so, and, in this case, entirely so. If Thekohser intended to do here what he allegedly did on Wikipedia, do we think that his asking for unblock would further this "nefarious plan," and that a mere block would deter him? After all, he was blocked there! So block evasion (acknowledged) on another project is grounds for requiring him to evade a block to edit here? I think there is quite a bit of confusion in this idea! We are proposing to allow open contribution by Thekohser, hoping that this will encourage him to provide good content. It's pretty simple, I'd think, and it only gets complicated when we try to read minds, judge people based on behavior elsewhere, and depend on our own murky crystal balls, considering only our own narrow issues. Arlen22, for example, seemed to think that unblocking Thekohser would add to her personal work load. That, of course, could be said of anything that would increase contributions! What's the risk of unblocking? It is easier to monitor the contributions of a user if they are unblocked! But I don't expect Thekohser will sock here. We have some here trying to predict his behavior who are not familiar with him and his history. Bad Idea. --Abd (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think taking sister projects and external forums into account has the undesirable effect of marginalising Wikibooks people who don't have the time to follow all those debates. From your (Thenub's) position though, it would seem to follow that a period of constructive engagement by Thekohser on Wikiversity or other projects should earn him some credit in your eyes. Recent Runes (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks. But even if not for that, "constructive engagement" has to begin somewhere. There were reasons for Jimbo's original block on Wikiversity. (It's been an error to think that this whole thing is about claiming that Jimbo was wrong, that the problem with the block or ban was only procedural.) But, as I see it, the goal of that original block has been fulfilled; no longer will local wikis neglect "cross-wiki issues," which has to do, not with who is allowed to edit, but what content is allowed to stand, particularly if that content is seen as injurious to other wikis. The communities must work together, for mutual protection. We do this by monitoring our own content, and considering how it might negatively impact other wikis, and listening to complaints from "outsiders." For this reason, we will, I suspect, in the future, more strongly avoid allowing one wiki to be used as a platform from which to criticize other wikis, or users at other wikis. Wikiversity is unique, though, in its allowance of original research, which is why it can be expected that the conflict between academic freedom and self-protection will probably present itself most strongly there, as people want to study wikis themselves, a natural inclination for us! We will work it out there, I'm confident. It really isn't that much of an issue here, though I would not be surprised to see books on the wikis appear here. That will require attention and caution. Anything really difficult, involving original research, should be directed over to Wikiversity, where the procedures and protections, you can expect, will be developed, and then a mature book, if it arises, could be brought back here. --Abd (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was hoping you would say that Wikiversity is the best place for both your and Thekohser's contributions. One factor in my supporting an unblock of the Thekohser here was that, apart from recycling his old college thesis, I though Wikibooks was generally rather stuffy for his style of material. Compared with Wikipedia of course, both WB & WV have pretty low awareness among the general public. Recent Runes (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity is more appropriate for material that might get Thekohser into trouble! (That is, while Wikiversity isn't the Wild West, at least original research is possible there. There are still limits.) But he's wanting, and promising, to contribute material here that is more appropriate for here, as you mention! He knows the difference. And if he doesn't, I'm sure we will help him out.

I've mostly been wikignoming as to content here, and if anyone notices something problematic, please let me know! Most of what I'd want to write, as to major content, would belong on Wikiversity, because there is original research involved, I suspect, though I should become more familiar with the exact boundaries. Wikipedia has strict rules about not only OR, but also, not only NPOV, but article balance as well (according to, supposedly, preponderance of reliable sources, but, too often, instead, preponderance of editors), and strict RS requirements that exclude, in practice, much of what might be published by ordinary publishers. How this works out here I don't know yet. --Abd (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling this as closed - no comments for three days, consensus is clearly to unblock with no strong policy based arguments supporting continuation of the block. TheKosher is now unblocked with no "conditions" attached to the unblocking (other than those that apply to every community member). Thanks. QU ^TalkQu 08:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... no strong policy based arguments supporting continuation of the block". Is that a commentary on the merits of my public comments on policy (which were certainly not nearly as in-depth as they could have been, if I hadn't foolishly allowed myself to be drawn off into a pseudo-non-public side discussion), or were my comments simply ignored? I see, looking above, that Abd wrote a purported list of my "arguments" (unfortunately word choice, that) that omitted my longest public post on the matter, such as it was. It's sad that neither I nor, apparently, anyone else here noticed when that happened. --Pi zero (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly was not intentional. The list was simply diffs to arguments presented in this discussion, top to bottom. I apologize if I overlooked something. My goal was to make it easier for someone to review the arguments, and, of course, you could easily have fixed that yourself, or someone else could. --Abd (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that it wasn't intentional on your part. That side branch of the discussion occurred in the comparatively far less trafficked Administrative Assistance reading room; one can easily see how that side branch got overlooked here. And yes, I'm deeply disappointed in myself for failing to realize that part of my own (sadly limited) input into the discussion was being lost in the shuffle; thoroughly substandard performance on my part, even given my already low level of participation in this.

It may be undesirable to list that comment retroactively; it seems that those lists are now in effect a record of comments that factored in to the final chapter of this discussion, and presumably that comment was not a factor. --Pi zero (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pi - No, not at all. It was intended as a comment on the lack of policy in general and the absence of any "case law" in this area. I see these as positives rather than negatives - I hate the thought that we'd have policies to cover this situation or had experienced it so often that we had precedent to draw on. Then it'd be just like WP. Yuk. If it was meant as a comment on your views, I'd have said so directly and not inferred it - sorry if it sounded that way. QU ^TalkQu 21:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. --Pi zero (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vote to unblock is:

• 75% Support
• 25% Oppose

And I have completed my end of the bargain. Was it worth all of the fretting and argument about how dangerous I might be to this community? I hope that everyone can see how ridiculous was this notion of a "permanent and global ban", issued by one person, and clumsily enforced by another person. Community shouldn't ever be overruled by a stark minority of one, or two, acting on their own personal whim. I don't plan to contribute much more for now, but it is a nice feeling to be unblocked. -- Thekohser (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I made a pdf for a book and would like help uploading it. Please see http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:This_Quantum_World for more information. Thanks! Glich (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC),[reply]

First, let me say, Well Done! Glancing through the book it looks great, all the page breaks make sense, etc. Very good work. Secondly you should be able to upload the book to commons, by clicking the "upload file" link from the tool box. (Located on the side bar.) In the new setup you may need to click the triangle nex to "Toolbox" to get the link to appear. Forgive me for not just uploading it for you, but there are a few minor questions to be asked like who the creator was, date it was created, etc. that you would be better able to answer than I. Let me know if you need further help. Thenub314 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you go to upload the file, you can enter in "PDF Wikibooks" without the quotes for the category along with all the other information in the upload form. – Adrignola talk 19:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!!!

Some of you may be interested in trying out this new feature "Commons:Sequencer" available at Wikimedia Commons. There is a draft of a Sequence:Wikijunior Animal Alphabet based on File:Animal_Alphabet-320x240-kmf.ogg which thee community could help to improve using the new interface. Helder 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! My name is James Alexander and I'm working with the Wikimedia Foundation during the 2010 Fundraiser. Part of my job is reaching out to local communities, including here on Wikibooks. This year we want to be as community-driven as possible and are looking for input not only with translating messages but also with pointing out messages that won't work well (or at all) in your country, region, language or project and proposing messages that you think would be work better.

With improvements to the Central Notice system we have a lot of flexibility in targeting specific geographical regions, languages and projects and we hope to use every tool at our disposal to make this year a success. As you may have already noticed over the past couple weeks we are running hour long banner tests (currently every Thursday at around 2200 UTC). These tests and the comments that we get on the meta page (see below) are a big part of how we are choosing which banners to run this year. If it doesn't test well it won't be used and even if we dislike a banner if the community likes it we are very likely to test it out (and could easily be proven wrong).

You can see some of the current suggestions (and propose your own) on the Meta messaging page but I also want to encourage the community to discuss here (if we need to create a separate page for discussion we can). Myself and other staff members will be keeping an eye out to answer questions publicly and we are always available if you want to reach out privately as well. We would especially be interested in Wikibooks specific messages. As I write this we only have 1 :(

I look forward to seeing more of you on here and on Meta (if you want to really get involved join us on IRC or join the Jalexander (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This brief note is just to say hi to everybody (both to the folks who I know from my all-too-brief stint here earlier this year and to the ones I still have to meet), and to say I enjoy seeing life here remains healthy as usual. In particular it is very good to know Thenub has returned since July. Right now my life is rather awesomely hectic, but nevertheless I hope to be able to get seriously involved again in a not-so-distant future - for Wikibooks is a very intellectually stimulating place, in ways that reach far beyond the actual content of the books. Moreover, there is still an awful lot of work to make that Haskell book pristine... but I am getting carried away, so I will stop here. See ya, Duplode (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. --Jomegat (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! As ${\displaystyle j\omega t}$ says, welcome back. Very good to see you. Thenub314 (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! And you missed the whole long and IMHO rather silly discussion above. Kohs was unblocked, that's a good thing. BUT Mike.lifeguard left. That's a very bad thing. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 14:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently tried to join the wikijunior IRC channel. I didn't realize we had one until I was updating Wikibooks:Contact us. When I tried to join I was greeted with the message "Cannot join #wikijunior (Channel is invite only)." I suppose I am curious how one gets invited to the channel, and why it is set up to be invite only? Thenub314 (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's set as invite only since the channel had been closed sometime in 2009. Let me know if you're interested in using it again and I'll see if we can get control of it. --Az1568 (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think it needs its own channel at the moment. I asked simply because I figured if we have one I wanted to make sure someone was in it, at least part of the time. For the moment the channel for the whole project is already quiet enough. No need to split its existing users between subprojects. Thenub314 (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone please help make this template look better? I tried to make it look good, but I know very little about tables and actually stole the whole thing from {{stages}}. Thanks! Kayau (talk | email | contribs) 14:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to even out the cells. It may look better without the vertical borders in place between the cells, but that's a subjective call. Beyond that, you'll have to be more specific about what you're looking for. – Adrignola talk 14:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks a lot neater now! (*slap* myself. Why didn't I think of the top cell?) Kayau (talk | email | contribs) 13:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A long time community member Mike.lifeguard has announced his retirement. While I know some people had some disagreement with him recently, it seemed only fitting we should wish him a fond farewell after his many years of service.

• Mike the best of luck in your future endeavors. --Thenub314 (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A real shame Mike has gone, he made a huge contribution here. Good luck and best wishes. QU ^TalkQu 21:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A self-described Wikibookian at heart. Good luck to you. --Pi zero (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Wish he needed our permission! He knows a lot about Wikimedia. Wish I could change that to wiki-break, Wikibooks won't be the same without him. -Arlen22 (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I wish he would have gotten some help or guidance when he was starting to go off the rails in the past year. I really don't understand his paranoia about how Wikimedia projects would descend into utter chaos if they might allow me to edit on them. I think the result of tolerating my participation here sort of speaks for itself. Anyway, good luck to Mike in his non-Wikimedia pursuits. I think both worlds will be better off with the forward-going arrangement. -- Thekohser (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The pressure of the waves of vandalism, spam, pov-pushing, and just plain garbage, can lead administrators to become impatient, it's an occupational hazard. To me, the problems are structural, not personal, we don't provide enough support for administrators, and we can be reduced to complaining about what we don't like. I found myself having to oppose Mike's actions, but I've never doubted that he was pursuing his ideals for the project. Someone like Mike has indeed contributed much, and that should not be forgotten because of some details of how it went later. Good luck, Mike. --Abd (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be rude of me not to comment here. Mike.lifeguard has always been an active and caring member of our community. He is experienced. Last year I missed Whiteknight's retirement when I was on a Wikibreak. I don't want to miss out Mike's too. So goodbye, and I hope one day you can be back. :( Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 11:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologise if I sounded insincere; my lack of experience in life does not allow me to sound better. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 11:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Best of luck, Mike. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 03:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikibookian recommends that I split large pages into smaller ones. I tried. I tried putting the book_title/section in the header, and all this did was appear as text. How do I split large pages into smaller ones? How do I conform to the Wikibook recommendation of naming pages without it appearing as text in the page?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scifipete (talk • contribs) .

The way I'd do it would be to add some text to the original page, and then hit "preview". The text would look something like this:

*[[/Introduction/]]
*[[/Architecture/]]
*[[/etc/]]

The leading and trailing slashes are important. The leading slash will put it under the book's hierarchy as per the naming convention. The trailing slash will suppress the display of the hierarchy making it look a ton better. Once you have an outline and preview the changes, you can click on the red links that you should have just created (open them in a new tab if you can). Then cut and paste sections from the original into the new, and save all the pages. In the edit summary of the new page, you should say something like "Split parent into subpages." If you need further explanation, or if I explained something badly, please ask again. --Jomegat (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there (again). I renamed my book, and lost every single page. I can access the pages by going backward through my browser session (they are still physically there). I did an "UNDO" on the change, and nothing has changed - i.e. Under the OLD book header "Oracle Compatibility in DB2" all the sub sections are in red (i.e. nonexistent pages), and under the NEW book header "Oracle and DB2, Comparison and Compatibility" all the sub sections are non existent. BUT if I look at my watchlist (for example), I can still see all the pages under the OLD hierarchy. There's gotta be an easy way to fix this, can U help? --Scifipete (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to move the book back to the original name, then ask an admin to move all the subpages at once. Or you could also move all the subpages to the new name yourself, which is slower. Kayau (talk | email | contribs) 23:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scifipete performed copy and paste moves on the subpages. I deleted the old subpages under the previous name, since Scifipete was the only contributor. As Kayau notes above, an admin can save you a lot of trouble in the future renaming a book at once. Additionally, if you have other contributors later on, it keeps the edit history intact. – Adrignola talk 00:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I did it again. I'm getting feedback on the book as I'm developing it, and when someone mentions a structural change, I like to be able to see it. I know how to cut and paste, it only takes few minutes to move around chunks. If Rename/Move then Cut & Paste is the way to do this, I'll stick with it - thx --Scifipete (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm currently attempting to revitalize the 'Animal Rights' book. I've outlined the general approach that I feel is appropriate to take for the project. If you have any criticisms of the opening plans, want to help out, or whatever, please let me know (or just go ahead and make some changes)! Rucha58 (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that someone is taking up work on the book. Considering that it did not have any content to speak of prior, you're pretty free to determine the direction you wish to take. The only thing I can note is that it's helpful to add {{BookCat}} to pages you create for automatic indexing and grouping with the book. I'll assist with general formatting where anything pops out at me. – Adrignola talk 22:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll start using that from now on. Rucha58 (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great book! I'll read it when it's finished. :) Still, I'd like to point out a common mistakes that new users often make: original research. All materials in the book must not be what you discovered yourself. Also, the book must also be written from a neutral point of view, although that is sometimes difficult, so others can help. Regards Kayau (talk | email | contribs) 02:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at the vegetarianism/veganism part and it has room for improvement. It looks like a linkfarm. Try to avoid using external links except when using them as a source, or when it is the website of the subject in quesiton, ie if you're writing about the IVU then link to the IVU. Regards Kayau (talk | email | contribs) 02:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I want a section called PL/SQL and I put it in the normal page heading *PL/SQL it formats weird. Tried backslash escapes, how do I do this? --Scifipete (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link to Oracle and DB2, Comparison and Compatibility/PL/SQL Compatibility on the main book page. I'm not sure if you're referencing that link in particular. – Adrignola talk 03:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the one. I looked at it, and it does not seem any different from when I created it. It's good that it's fixed, but I'd like to know how to do it for future reference, thx --Scifipete (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning slash makes a link go to a subpage of the current one, while the trailing slash is a trick that causes that beginning slash to be suppressed in the displayed text for the link. The link still goes to the same page, but now looks neater. Help:Editing#Links will detail for you all the little nuances of linking that are so very essential to know here at Wikibooks, where subpages reign supreme. – Adrignola talk 19:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thx --Scifipete (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Main Page. Thanks. Kayau (talk | email | contribs) 10:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add a list of the pages in my book in the order they should be read at the end of each page. I did it by hand in the end. Is there some simple way I should have done this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.107.92 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, there is. Create a template. Call it whatever you want; it just has to start with 'template:'. So both 'template:A Quick Introduction to Unix and Template:The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog will do. (Pick a useful one, of course.) Copy the table of contents and paste it there. When writing new pages, add {{template name}} and your table of contents will be transcluded there. The only disadvantage is that the current page will be in boldface rather than italics.

You can use Template:A Quick Introduction to Unix by typing {{A Quick Introduction to Unix}} at the spot you would like it to appear. I've populated it what I believe you desire and placed it on a couple pages. – Adrignola talk 12:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in {{Navigate}} which will list previous, current, and next pages (with links to prev & next). --Jomegat (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the responses. Thank you especially to Adrignola who has taken so much trouble to clean up my messes in this book. I now have a better understanding of how this business works. Jimbotyson (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: _A Quick Introduction to Unix_I realise this is a wikibook and not a wikiversity course, but I think I need to provide readers with the example textfile that I mention in various sections. The text is from Wikipedia, just stripped bare of formatting. Is there a good way to do this? I could make it an external link of course.Jimbotyson (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could request a history import of the Wikipedia page to the destination you require at Wikibooks:Requests for import and then overwrite the contents of that page with the unformatted version of the same page. Examples are well within the bounds of Wikibooks' scope. – Adrignola talk 15:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]