Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion/The Manual of Crime

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

The Manual of Crime[edit]

There was never consensus to delete this. The vote on Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/The Manual of Crime was 11-7 in favor of keeping it. Guanaco 22:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: Many of the votes below were copied from the comments to make them easier to count. Users' comments remain intact in the "Comments" section. --Kernigh 02:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Undelete - 4[edit]

  • Undelete Make that 12-7.  :) - Nyarlathotep 17:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete: The consensus was in favor of keeping it. Wikibooks, like all wikis, is supposed to be predominately user-run. I fail to see why it was deleted. --Oburo 02:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete (see comments below) Dolive21 16:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete If you didn't think it was textbook-quality, restore it and fix it! That's why wikis are user-editable. And the "it doesn't belong here" argument is too broad to be a real policy. --AK7 20:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC) As of this vote on this user has 1 edit on wikibooks and 7 edits on wikipedia. Trödel 21:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Deleted - 10[edit]

  • Delete --Whiteknight TCE 19:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redelete. For me, this book is not worth moving off Wikibooks. Violates WB:WIW - Wikibooks is not a soapbox by promoting harmful activity. If you want a good text on crime, read the Wikipedia articles Arson, ... --Kernigh 18:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Such a book has no place on a textbook project and never will. --MShonle 02:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redelete, keep deleted, and drive a stake through its ugly heart. It's nonsense, it's silly, and it demeans Wikibooks reputation. It violates policy: "Wikibooks is not a soapbox"; "Wikibooks is not a free wiki host or webspace provider." And it is not a textbook. [Yikes, I didn't sign my votes. I'm sigining it now.] --JMRyan 18:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the book in its current state will not be hosted by us again, period. GarrettTalk 20:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (See comments below) --Derbeth talk 23:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - existance is contrary to mission of wikibooks Trödel 17:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm a rabid inclusionist, but this must go. It is not a textbook in its current form. If it can be restructured to be more like something that would be taught in a counterintelligence course for spies, that would be about the only way it might remain, but currently it is nothing like that and should go. --Brian0918 19:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Gerard Foley 22:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Speedy it until this VfU is completed. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Delete. No matter how many votes it got, the Manual of Crime was against wikibooks policy, and therefore it gets deleted. Do not undelete, do not pass go, do not collect 200$. --Whiteknight TCE 19:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • How? What policy? I can imagine such a book being used in courses on writing a mystery book, but not unless I see the text. Maybe it violates NOR? - 81.97.155.10 10:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It violates policy because it is not a textbook, nor will it ever be. Also, it cannot be used to teach a class, because no educational institution will ever teach a class on how to commit crime. Even if this book is nonfiction, official policy states that most nonfiction books are not appropriate here, only textbooks. that is how it violates policy. Read up on WB:WIW before you question it. --Whiteknight TCE 23:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • It is up to the users to determine wether it violates policy, and the consensus was not in favor of deletion --Oburo 18:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The Manual of Crime is a textbook. It promotes crime, so anyone interested in crime can study it. However, "violates policy" is not a sufficient reason for deletion. I am voting redelete (see below), and I want a consensus to delete this book! --Kernigh 18:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • View There was no consensus to delete. Several of the votes on both sides were by anonymous users or users without much contributions, and admins were also split. If the book violates policy, it might need editing instead of deletion. However, I have never seen the text of this book, so I cannot decide wheter to support deletion or undeletion. --Kernigh 21:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I am viewing The Manual of Crime. I am not decided yet, but I will probably vote to redelete this, but only after it is moved off Wikibooks. --Kernigh 18:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Redelete. For me, this book is not worth moving off Wikibooks. Violates WB:WIW - Wikibooks is not a soapbox by promoting harmful activity. If you want a good text on crime, read the Wikipedia articles Arson, ... --Kernigh 18:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you, this book is a detriment to the entire project. It, and books like it take away from our credibility, and make all of wikibooks look "less serious". People who vote to undelete this peice of garbage don't understand what wikibooks is, or what it could potentially become. --Whiteknight TCE 03:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Now that I have read it I can say that it does not violate the "wikibooks is not a soapbox" rule. It does not preach any ideology (unlike Steal This Book and others), nor does it self-promote. It does not encourage the reader to act on the instructions it contains. It cannot be denied that a person who already has a criminal intent may act on them, but the information is widely available even in libraries. Think, how safe would we be if citizens and law enforcement didn't know the tricks of average criminals? --Oburo 23:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I should say that it is presented in a less-than-desirable way (as a how-to) but how else would it be presented? --Oburo 23:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • It can be presented directly into the trash. I can't imagine a single benefit to keeping this book around. Current concensus is to keep this peice of garbage deleted, and if it stays that way, i will personally redelete this one myself. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 00:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Thank you for not responding to my actual comments. If you want to wage war on a book with no redeemable values feel free to smite How to Cause Havoc, but not a potentially valuable one like the manual of crime --Oburo 01:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Its really a no brainer to undelete & keep. Consensus needs to favor deletion to delete. Original vote was 11-7. No more needs ot be said. Plus I'm amused by the anonymous post about courses on mystery books. - Nyarlathotep 12:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think it's unacceptable. This is no study of crime, it's how-to of braking the law. We should remember that anyone reads Wikibooks, also irresponsible people who might want to test tips provided by the book. Wikibooks is not for everything, if someone wants to write such book, he can find another wiki. Even if there is currently no policy against this book, Manual of Crime is just against philosophy of Wikibooks. --Derbeth talk 23:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. This book is a useful tool for research. If some one falls in with a bad crowd and starts breaking the law then they will learn this stuff from their friends. If I want to learn this stuff I have to look here. If I want to learn how to blow someone up I can just take a chemistry class or take a chem book out of the library. Making this sort of info harder to find will not stop people who want to kill people or steal stuff or grow drugs finding it, but it will stop you and me. If i know that with x + y + z you can make a bomb, and I am working the till in a shop and sell someone looking all nervous these things I can tell the police so they can check it out. As a brit it occurs to me that if the person who sold the July 7 bombers 20 bottles of bleach and drain cleaner and nail varnish remover had know that those 3 chemicals make a powerful explosive I would have several more fellow citizens. Terrorists have chemists to tell them this stuff. Also if kids playing around with chemicals see this stuff they will know that it is dangerous and might not try it. The bad guys learn this stuff through experience or through going to the trouble to work it out. the book could probably benefit from being rephrased in parts , but should definatelly be kept. Dolive21 16:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    Are you serious. This is contrary to human nature. A store clerk has no need to know such a piece of trivia and no duty to know it. It is more likely that those who want to make explosives (and have a motive to research) would have a desire to know - and find it here. The store clerk would want to know the best pubs between his office and home - but it is very unlikely that a clerk would think, "I should research explosives in case someone comes into buy common household items to make a bomb." Get real Trödel 18:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    OK, the book is useful, but it promotes crime instead of describing it. Wikibooks is the wrong wiki for this book. --Kernigh 00:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    Trodel, you're taking his example too seriously. There are many other ways the information in this book can be used, from preventing common shoplifting tricks to knowing how to deal with being mugged and how to avoid it. --Oburo 02:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    A better example might have been the information on cannabis but the point stands. And the terrorists do not need to find it here, they have chemists (the english type of chemist, who have degrees in chemistry, not the american type with Pharmacy degrees). Kernigh has a point about the way it is phrased, but it can be reworded to correct that, as i have already suggested. The terrorists and criminals will go to the trouble to find out this stuff, but the general public will not. Almost every section has prevention advice at the end. Most of the guns Section of buying could be found on a Brady campaign website.Dolive21 11:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • To be fair, in america we call people with chemistry degrees "Chemists", and we call people with pharmacy degrees "Pharmacists". People who hand out prescription medications are never called "Chemists". --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 15:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I want to draw everybody's attention to some quotes from the manual of crime that got it in trouble in the first place:
Many rapists use a gun or a knife to threaten their victims with bodily harm to keep them compliant. You may hear things like "stop, please" but don't let that discourage you. Tonight is your night. Don't let anything stand in your way.

"Tonight is your night"? This isnt a textbook, and this isn't going to teach anybody, nor is it going to make anybody any more safe by knowing this stuff. This book is disgusting, plain and simple. Now, I would not be against a book entitled "How to Avoid Crime", or "How not to be a victim of crime", or "how to survive a violent attack", or something like that. This book however is a blot on the wiki project, and needs to be deleted. So help me, I will get jimbo in here to delete this one personally if the vote here doesnt reach a delete concensus. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 18:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

    • I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that that section was deleted with consensus a while ago, and that it is not typical of the rest of the book --Oburo 01:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • "Not typical"? This entire book promotes crime, and the entire book was written in a similar style, and with a similar focus to the passage I listed above, even if that particular passage is no longer included. Let me reiterate: This book actively promotes crime. It is not a manual to help people understand crime, nor does it help potential victims avoid crime. This book is completely unacceptable. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 15:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Speedy it until this VfU is completed. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Whiteknight (talk) (current) has deleted the page prematurely. I have copies of most of it and will send to any one who asks. Could an admin undelte it again so that this can be debated. Also it cannot be improved while it is deleted. If it were reinstated it could be improved to make it more aceptable. Dolive21 16:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The proper action is to leave it deleted until this VfU has been completed. The deletion policy states that modules that were recreated after being deleted are subject to Speedying if they were not recreated through the VfU process. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • LV sugested a policy that admins should only use their powers where they are not involved in a dispute over the subject matter. Yet he asked whiteknight to delete the manual even though he as expressed strong views.Dolive21 17:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • True, Admins should be wary of taking action where they are active participants, but we trust Admins to make tough decisions. That is why they are Admins. In this case, the module was undeleted in violation of the policy, therefore Whiteknight took the correct action in redeleting it (in my opinion). Even though he is involved with the discussion, he still has the right to uphold policy. And I never specifically asked Whiteknight to do it, it could have been another uninvolved Admin. If you feel Whiteknight's actions were an abuse of his power, there is actually not much in place at the moment to object to him. This is the main reason I think we need to have some kind of dispute resolution process on the table for touchy situations. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a vote for undeletion, implying that the module in question should have already been deleted. It was deleted as per a VfD discussion (albeit a disputed one), and was temporarily undeleted so that the users here could read the book and therefore make an informed decision as to whether or not to undelete. The time that this book was made available again was for reading only to make an informed decision here. Also, that brief time could have been used to transfer the manual of crime to a more appropriate host. However, the time that this module spend undeleted was not a time that should have been used to edit the book, or to foster further contributions for this book: It was in a state of limbo. By actively editing and contributing to the manual of crime during this period, the contributers violated the good faith under which the module was temporarily undeleted in the first place. I redeleted this book--in a manner that is 100% in compliance with policy--until these VfU preceedings have ended. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 18:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, policy states only that the admin that originally called the VfD vote should not perform the actual deletion, to try and avoid conflicts of interest. I didnt call the original VfD, nor did I call this VfU, and therefore, have not broken policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 18:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Results & Refactoring[edit]

Currently, by my count, the vote is 10-3 in favor of deletion. One of the delete votes wasnt signed, so i didnt count it. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 21:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I refactored this discussion to make the votes easier to identify. Note that if there were responses to the vote I left it in the Comment section but removed the bold on the vote text. It should be easier to follow now. Please review to make sure I didn't miss anything. Trödel 21:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you do it correctly? Whiteknight (talk) (current) said 10-3, excluding the unsigned vote, but in the current form I see 9-3, excluding the unsigned vote. --Kernigh 03:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Observing the refactoring, I count 11 delete votes on the left and only 10 on the right, so possibly Trödel accidentally dropped one. --Kernigh 03:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I may have miscounted. To err is human. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 14:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I reviewed the chagnes and can't see any that I missed - I did them 1-2 at a time so that it would be easier to spot changes by looking through the sequence of revisions - I can't find any that didn't get moved. Trödel 16:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I was the guilty party who forgot to sign his vote. Mea culpa. It's signed now. --JMRyan 18:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Current concensus is to keep this book deleted. Concensus has stood, with a very good voter turnout, for over a week. The book will remain deleted. I will archive this discussion in 1 week. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 13:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)