Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion/Teaching Assistant in France Survival Guide/Directory

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search

Teaching Assistant in France Survival Guide/Directory[edit]

(VfD discussion here)

The page in question was deleted as a result of an "abusive" be bold action (abusive in the sense it didn't respect other people expressed opinion on the subject, and was directly opposed to the wishes of the community discussion on the topic). The rational for the delete action in my view is not correct (would apply to a book but not to a page on a book), check the discussion log for the Vfd for more info if needed I may also ask for other users support on the undelete. --Panic 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Undeletion - I'm not ready to blatantly revert the decision by Darklama and engage in wheelwaring on this topic, but I do think the decision to undelete in this case was not conclusive. At best the VfD could be read as a lack of concensus, rather than a concensus to delete. I did support keeping the page for reasons I mentioned in the VfD vote, and I think they still apply here. And more to the point, since the page has been deleted there is harm that has been done compared to leaving it as-is but with a request for more discussion on the topic, as this page is referenced from several other spots externally to Wikibooks. More to the point, if this page really was to be deleted, it would have been preferred to have some place like Wikia or some other web page that it could have been moved to, rather than treated like yesterday's spam, as the information that was found on this page is of some value. --Rob Horning 03:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I made my decision based on the weight/quality of the arguments presented after looking at the book and that page, and what I think was best for the community. For example, I do agree that the length of page and problems with it being outdated were not reasons to delete it and that it may have had some value. However you seemed to agree that it would be more appropriate hosted somewhere else besides a Wikimedia project despite voting to keep it and Whiteknight pointed out that not all useful/valuable information belongs on Wikibooks, which I also agree with. Over a month had passed without comment before it was closed, which I believe was enough time for someone to deal with the problems that had been brought up, but which nobody did address. Besides the issues that were brought up it seemed clear to me that this particular page was inconsistent with the rest of the book in its scope, and not only had potential to be abused by spammers and unverifiable, but also a potential source for troubles with unqualified individuals claiming to be teaching assistances, which is similar in nature to a problem faced on Wikipedia not too long ago and caused some new foundation policy to be passed I think. However even putting that issue aside, I think it broke Wikibooks' policy on advertising or self-promotion and Wikibooks is not a free wiki host or webspace provider because its intentions were to encourage teach assistances in France to promote themselves and provide contact information which seems more appropriate for their user page or a separate website, and/or could easy violate Foundation:Privacy policy from having someone else's contact information added without their knowledge.
If someone specifically asks for the information so they can copy it to another website, then any administrator who feels comfortable with doing so can copy the information and email it to them. I know I wouldn't feel comfortable doing so due to possibly giving out someone's contact information who did not give permission for there information to be given out. --darklama 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Txs for providing the motivation (in extended form for what was said on the final/closing argument), but even if I agree with some of your points I disagree on the final result and on several of the perceived problems.
After a work/page is nominated for VfD and participation is started the Wikibooks:Deletion policy and Wikibooks:Votes for deletion policies define how to proceed. Nomination results for the need for input from other Wikibookians in form of comments or participation of a pool and fallows the Wikibooks:Decision making policy, in you closing action you subverted that process acting on you own judgment (that is only defined as a Be Bold action), that was incorrect since it disregarded the stated wishes of other Wikibookians as reflected on the votes (not comments) performed on the discussion, the simples result of validating that one sided action is that it will make people stop to participate on VfD discussion since it removes any usefulness to a discussion. Why participate if your opinion is not weighted or has an impact on the decission, I don't think that this is useful or promotes the growth of participation on the Wikibooks project.
Even if the deletion action was the result of a direct Be Bold action as a speedy deletion, several points you raise could and were objected to, that would probably result on a similar undelete request as the present one and probably that was the reason behing the VfD nomination in the first place.
I and most of the Wikibookians participating on the VfD are looking from outside of the book, it is not our work and the argumentation is given in general terms but someone that seems to have a direct working relation to it stated that the VfD was without merit. By doing so the page was validated by the book community as valid and wanted.
As for the content I agree with you and with Rob Horning but should we now start to take preemptive action against spammers as rule of thumb (beside blocking open proxys)? I don't think this is proper and useful as it will limit participation and growth of the project, getting us in conflict with the golden rule to expect the best from people. In this case no one pointed any problem or abuse (even of privacy), it doesn't fall under advertisement, soapbox or even of self promotion, if the page was all of the work then I would agree that Wikibooks is not a free wiki host or webspace provider would apply but as it stood it served the book community and was even intended to promote the book and wikibooksas project and open for participation.
The problem of the information being unverifiable doesn't have any impact on the information provided since it was just an aggregation of contact information added by each one about one self, not third person and in a voluntarily manner and as you state most aren't even registered Wikibookians. We could advice and place a warning tag but per se it is not a violation of the Foundation:Privacy policy.
Tranwiki or providing help to move the content also doesn't raise a problem as the content was public and probably is automatically replicated in several other mirrors of Wikibooks content. People have committed the information under the GFDL so this is a not even an issue.
What my undelete request attempt to pass is that the deletion was not a result of a VfD (or a proper VfD) and inferring it as such is wrong. I would have not objected if it was the result of a speedy deletion. I'm not defending the content or the validly of the page beyond what I personally have stated on the VfD discussion, the book community should do it if it finds the deletion unwanted, but as it stood I had no "problem" with the page in question, and would raise the same points if the rational was used against the wishes of those working on the book/page. --Panic 23:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
In reference to the suggestion that you can simply make a request to an administrator after the information is deleted, I think this is a suggestion that lacks any real merit. More to the point, It would be very difficult to know that the information even exists, unless you are well versed in the details of Wikimedia projects and the MediaWiki software. It would have been far better to place the {{Impending Doom}} template on the content and leave that template on there for a reasonable period of time while those participating can find an alternative website to host this content. That sort of discussion certainly did not take place at all, at least from what I saw on the VfD page or elsewhere. If after some time there still is no discussion about where to move it, it would then be very appropriate to simply kill the page. A reasonable period of time is certainly much more than a week.
Fortunately/unfortunately, the damage is already done. The page is now deleted, and any community that might exist to promote its inclusion within Wikibooks is gone now. With over 400 edits to this page, there certainly was a pretty broad community of people who did use/read/contribute to its content, most of them people from outside of the typical group of Wikibookians that participate in internal Wikibooks discussions. --Rob Horning 19:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It was over a month before I closed the discussion, not a week. As far as the issue of loss of useful information, since my original response to you, SB_Johnny has imported it and given it a home on Wikiversity under v:Teaching Assistant in France Survival Guide/Directory. --darklama 22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion - Obviously (since I nominated it for deletion), I think it should stay deleted. It should certainly be noted, however, that anyone who wants to host the material elsewhere is welcome to a copy of it, and it would be provided upon request. I'd also like to point out that the quality of comments at VFD is what counts; I think darklama had it perfect on the evaluation of the comments. The absolute least we can do is assume good faith instead of tossing around "abusive." In the end, I say: "Useful and up-to-date it may be, but Wikibooks content it is not; it stays deleted." Mike.lifeguard | talk 04:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The action was performed against the expressed views (the VfD pool, 2 for delete 5 for keep), VfD shouldn't be open for Be Bold actions once the VfD is started and people are participating. Indecision was not the reason for the action taken and it disregarded the VfD proceedings and opinions expressed. How would you qualify the action ? (I may have worded it badly).
In any case you opposition to the undeletion is week, you justify it with your expressed vote for deletion not addressing the reason the undelete was requested. Opposition to this this undelete should be backed by proper reasoning for the "violation" of the VfD policy, this is the ground for my request for the undelete. --Panic 15:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my reasoning does address the reason you requested undeletion. Your reason was "The page in question was deleted as a result of an "abusive" be bold action." And my reason for opposing undeletion was "I think darklama had it perfect on the evaluation of the comments." Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
My I understand that by "I think darklama had it perfect on the evaluation of the comments.", you also support the disregard for the proceedings stipulated on the VfD and the implementation of unilateral decisions ? (And take note that they were not comments, but votes as defined on the VfD)
Since it wasn't a misinterpretation of the discussion; We can't even call it a proper evaluation, since most opposed to the action taken. And if indeed it was evaluated it only took into regard the intended result, the required action and any subsequent opposition to it (and so I called it abusive, of the rules and people).
This was made in total disregard to a consensual decission, against the policy and in seemingly "intended" disregard to other peoples opinions. I would like and ask you if possible that you extend your interpretation of the event in a way it can be validated and taken in consideration. You may be against policies but you must not break them. In this case interpretation of the policy could, but seems improbable, to have been the basis for the action (since it is clear it was taken against the flow of opinions), and I don't think you are validating the refusal of consensual decission of supporting the violation of the VfD policy... --Panic 18:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Undeletion. Can't see why it was deleted nor what the point is of deleting individual pages of books. It seems that concensus wasn't reached. Xania Flag of Italy.svgtalk 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Keep deleted . First off, panics assertion that this action by Darklama was "abusive" is way out of line, and it's this kind of uncivil statement that has gotten him in trouble in the past. Second, you are trying to cause a disruption to prove a point. That is, you are trying to have a page undeleted based soley on the grounds that you don't like the way in which it was deleted. You haven't made any sort of case based on any real policy as to why the page should not have been deleted, or why it should be undeleted now. On the other hand, Darklama and myself did list several policy-based reasons why the page should have been deleted. Also, we do not vote, so the final vote tally is inconsequential. Darklama weighted the rationale behind those votes, found the rationale for keeping the page to be lacking, and decided to delete the page. Unless you can present a solid reason why the page should not have been deleted based on the merits of the page itself (and not on your intepretations of the failings of darklama's decision making), this request is moot. Also, I suggest you stop hassleing people and being so quick to declare "abuse". --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The assertion is valid Darklama is an administrator that implies that he acts with full knowledge of the implications; Abusive doesn't translate to bad intentions or even bad faith, only to improper OR wrongful action. I have clarified the context of the use of the word in the first utilization.
I'm not attempting to cause any disruption I considered writing to Darklama privately as I have done in past action of disagreement (even with you), I only did it more publicly because my last post on his talk page did not receive a reply, and I knew full well that in the event the deletion was not archived someone else would have objected to it. (PS: I haven't contacted anyone for support nor have I "publicized" the disagreement)
The reasons of why the page should not be deleted were added to the discussion by my (and others) argumentations and votes and all interpretations are of the same value of Darklama's own, it is clear that consensus was not reached, why should his view be the only deciding factor? --Panic 17:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as always you have all sorts of rationalizations for why you are being disruptive, and as usual I am hardly moved by them. Only an administrator can decide whether to delete or undelete a page. You can make your opinion, but you cannot make that final decision. Darklama can, however, by virtue of that administrator flag. This is why giving thoughtful rationale that is grounded in policy and precident is so important to the consensus decision-making process. My comment on the VfD discussion contained a number of points of how this page violated policy. If the page is indeed shown to be a policy violation, any administrator can delete it speedily. So even though you don't feel that we all stopped and obeyed your suggestions, and despite the fact that you wish more people would do everything you say, that's just not the way things happen around here, panic. If anybody is being abusive around here, I would say that it's you as usual. I'm not going to let you misuse the system in order to get your enemies (darklama) in "trouble". --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the last post I'll make to you and on this page, you may like to point out how disruptive I'm or what my motivations are but I think I have pretty much been always clear and as direct as I can, if you are attempting again to validate your views by attacking my motivations and character so be it, but I will from now on ignore you on that basis, I have as much right to defend my view points as anyone else.
The process to reach a decision was usurped here, you may try to defend it but I think you are smart enough to see that that view is indefensible... --Panic 03:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You have no motivations here, on this page, other then trying to show that Darklama has been abusive. Even trying to explain away your use that word doesnt make it less of a personal attack against him. You haven't given a single reason why the page should be undeleted on it's own merits, or how the page is not a violation of policy. This is not a page where we request undeletions of pages because you don't agree with the speed with which they were deleted, or because you don't think that a page should be deleted because you said so, or because you don't like the person who deleted it. A number of reasons to delete the page were given, none of those were rebutted in over a week, and so an administrator deleted the page. This whole thing here is little more then an assumption of bad faith by you against darklama, and that is completely unacceptable. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A majority (albeit slim) voted to keep this book and produced arguements that explained why. Are we saying that an administrator's arguement is worth more than others? I would prefer such votes to be decided on numbers only in future as the Wiki system of basing a decision on the "strength" of the arguement rather than the number of votes is open to abuse (not in this case) or in this case disagreements. Xania Flag of Italy.svgtalk 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you seriously asking for a descent into majority rule? Your only comment in the VfD was that the page is "potentially useful", you never once addressed any of the policy concerns that other users brought up. In that sense I would say that yes, your comment carried less weight then that of other people's. We do have policies, and we do delete pages that might be "potentially useful" all the time. If a vague sense of potential worth is your only criteria for keeping pages, I can name a dozen other wiki-based websites that are more in line with those kinds of goals.
Mattb voted to keep the page because it "doesnt seem to be out of date". Panic voted that he would delete the page if it were an entire book, and not just a page (hardly a glowing vote of support), and Rob horning's vote while thoughtful, was hardly persuasive. Rob said that "the survival guide does not strictly need this directory in order to exist", and went on to say that the primary value of the page was as a measure of "how many people are actually reading and using the survival guide". In other words, the most thoughtful vote that was received only went so far as to say that the page wasn't necessary, and it's primary benefit was to be used as a general sort of page counter. Sorry if the jury wasnt persuaded by these arguments. VfD isn't a place where we discuss our feelings about the book, it's a place where we weight the book's conformance to existing policy, and make a rational decision based on that weight. Because of this, there are some votes that are going to be rendered inconsequential, and i'm not prepared to allow decisions like this to be decided by inconsequential votes. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
No "we" aren't saying that. I would say ideally providing reasons for why someone supports or opposes something in a easily understood manner, explains why they believes the best outcome would be reached by following there lead, offers possible alternatives or suggestions if they disagree with a position, and offers to help with the alternative solution if supported, while maintaining a friendly, positive, civil and open attitude would carry the greatest weight. With "me too", "support", "oppose", "I disagree", etc. votes without any reasons or explanations being given carrying the least weight. I believe simple vote counting is open to more abuse then weighing the votes, because it would allow people to game the system for what they want the outcome to be, reducing the motivation to compromise and discuss disagreements. Also according to Meta Polls are evil. Weighing discussion has less room for abuse because if someone disagrees with someone's interpretation of the outcome then discussion can be reopened and the previous decision challenged without the same person making the decision again or someone can try to convince the person who made the decision to change there mind. Ideally someone who is neutral and didn't participate in any of the discussions should make the decisions, however we're all merely human and cannot be expected to do so objectively, and make perfect decisions that will satisfy everyone completely all of the time. --darklama 23:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion. As herbythyme pointed out in the VfD discussion, this is not only a list of personal information, but it's also not verifiable (majority of edits are by IPs). Best option for recreating it would be for someone to just email everyone on that list, and ask them to set up an account (with email enabled), so that they can recieve email without posting it here. Asking people to make accounts isn't perfect, but at the very least it will ensure email address confirmation before someone starts actually sending emails to people. --SB_Johnny | PA! 23:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion - Sorry I didn't vote for it before. You guys have said it all above and I'm not going to step into that battle, so I'll leave this at "I don't think this is acceptable Wikibooks material per WIW". -withinfocus 03:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion --Herby talk thyme 09:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)